Harming independent schools and families isn't an unfortunate "cost" of the Education Tax, or "the means that's justified by the ends". For the architects of the policy, it's the whole point.
Never mind nationalising the railways and other industries, what we really need is a state monopoly of belief and childcare, perhaps with Angela Rayner in charge.
In theory, a solely state run school system is best.
In practice, only countries like Finland and South Korea come close to pulling it off. Germany did OK up until the 80s, then politicization took over, standards collapsed and parents started to embrace private schooling, often abroad or at International schools. Merkel's open border did the rest.
So, the effect was the exact opposite of what was intended equality-wise.
All Labour's policies will achieve is, say, 10% less pupils at private schools at a 30% higher cost, meaning a further status increase of a private education, plus a further selection towards and an even bigger advantage for kids of wealthy parents.
I'm not aware of any theory that says "solely state run" is best. In my old-fashioned way, I believe education has social benefit regardless who pays, and if the private sector is willing to pay it's even better for everyone else - that speaks to the funding angle.
In terms of who provides and runs? Theories I'm aware of indicate that competition between providers would be rather handy, with parents empowered to choose. The Beautiful Tree by James Tooley is an excellent read on this subject.
Finally "the state" is what? Is it (a bit like Finland) dedicated to good child outcomes, willing to support school quality and also choice? Or is it in-tow to teaching unions and wanting to use education as a way to impose an ideology, for example a left-wing woke culture war invoking critical race theory, trans ideology and forget Mum and Dad?
I think it is rather obvious, that society and most parents would prefer to have and benefit most from a functioning equal opportunity system that as such costs them no direct fees, while simultaneously providing their children with a very good education and a meritocratic base for their further education and the therefrom resulting career regardless of which stable they come from.
Of course, the 10-20% upper middle class+ dream hording wealthy parents would rather like to pay but only and/if that provides their children with a later automatic advantage just for having attended a private school, especially nowadays in light of (their) elite overproduction and ever fewer good jobs.
Therefore, achieving the former necessitates the absence of private schooling and/or of the developed cultural preference and advantage for such graduates just because they attended a renowned private school, like in the UK.
Finland shows that this is indeed possible, Germany shows that this can be and now most often is destroyed over time and also what it, counterproductively also equality-wise, results in: a dysfunctional public school system and a flight to international and UK private schools.
The UK system is imho far too entrenched to be changed and it has also become an important industry for the country, so it better not be messed with by Labour and if it is: see my prior comment.
But meritocratically it is a nightmare, and that can be witnessed in the decline of the country, of standards, of the quality of people in charge anywhere and resultingly of most of its industries and businesses since many decades.
It is far more important here to just have been at Eton or Oxford than what you've learned there and how you passed.
And A levels from any school are just a bad joke internationally, when you have only 3 subjects over the last 2 years of which 2 can be gender studies and psychology.
Britain has become a dysfunctional mediocracy, because in no other country of the world will you find CEOs of large companies whose degrees were in English literature, but/because from Oxbridge!, or people who got a job in the City just because they went to Eton&co.
The Finnish education system is not the glittering jewel it once was (in 2000), yet the perception remains. Finland has been steadily sliding down the rankings and has dropped 56 points for English, and 79 points for maths.
You "think it obvious" but you're not able to point to an actual theory that supports your claim, because it doesn't exist.
I agree with virtually none of your comment. The nice people at the Private Education Policy Forum would agree, however. Are you one of them?
Finland has better state education than UK, in general, and the schools don't cost much more to run. To the extent the state invests more in teacher training, it's paid for by taxing lower and middle earners significantly more than we do here. And there isn't "an absence of private schools". There are private schools and they don't charge VAT. There is also an entirely different culture surrounding schools, family and choice, which the progressive education Establishment strongly resists copying. If you're going to cite Finland, it's important to get these things right.
The vast majority of private schools are not Eton, the vast majority of private school children don't go on to Oxford. Anyone serious about the subject would not deal in this silly stereotypes. Further, if you're going to talk about privilege, you ought to address the elite state schools in nice catchment areas like Hampstead. It's easy to slag off independent schools if you have the luxury of a highly-exclusive state school at the end of the road.
The only thing I agree with is that we do let some state school children down. The reasons for that are extremely complicated and broad-ranging, and given many of the problems start from some families' treatment of toddlers, it's questionable whether the State can reasonably correct for them. That said, Starmer was onto something with his "oracy" stuff...to me, it's a mystery why primary school kids aren't already learning and declaiming poetry, and secondary kids arguing and debating.
It's fun and inexpensive, and there's no excuse for it not to be already happening. It's certainly not the fault of independent schools that it's not already happening.
One thing we can be absolutely certain of: the system would be worse without the disproportionate contribution of higher taxpayers reducing the burden by paying for education themselves.
It may work .... for a bit. Parents may pay the fees for a short period - they have to give a term's notice so they'll be paying Autumn 2024 anyway. There will be a group that pays because they are rising 11, 16 or 18. Some will look at the options for replacement schools and decide to game admissions with housing that are done in April 2025 for September 2025.
So the impact will be much the same, but they'll try and say it's nothing to do with VAT because it didn't happen straight away.
In many cases you're probably right. The bitter truth is nobody knows.
However the flip-side of the "I'm already in the saucepan" argument, is that the fall-offs will be acute at entry years; that's what's visible if anyone actually speaks to a Bursar or Registrar; and that determines their medium-term life-death view. The application funnel 1-2 years out is dire, like (anecdotally, to me) down 10-20pc, and many parents are specifically citing this VAT issue.
For a school that's economically sketchy i.e., no endowment and no surplus, you could easily see a 2-5pc contraction makes it unviable. And if you're a prep / pre-prep and you see 10-20pc contraction at Reception and at Year 3, then you're done for within a year, perhaps 2 unless something else gives.
And as soon as that reduced year-group turns up, it will be crystal clear to parents and staff that the school's days are numbered. It only takes a handful to jump ship (beat the rush to the state school, move house to a catchment area) to administer the blow.
What's astonishing to me is how silent the schools are. They all know this is happening. It's hard for individual schools to say "I'm at risk" because it becomes self-reinforcing, but that's why there is an industry group.
Another belter. Great job. I think the greatest impact we can have on this policy is through exposing its specific localised effects. Many of its proponents consider the more destructive this is the better. But we already see the Labour party’s ineffable “fairness” calculations choosing to exempt certain children so there is some consideration of effect. We hear Phillipson claiming to be denied the treasury data therefore unable to opine on state aid for the tertiary sector yet happy to just guess when it comes to schools. This illustrates an opportunity to subject the measure to proper consultation and modelling. I think we can build that pressure by politely contacting candidates in our schools’ constituencies and our nearest state alternatives and explain our expectations that good government demands data driven decision making. In my experience they’re happy defending the principle and unhappy defending its effects on their constituencies.
Great point on the "veil of Opposition". I'm certainly of the view that we should leverage Labour's explicit commitment to rely on the OBR, which some of their candidates have expressly said this policy should be subject to....
The main thing we have to watch out for is we must have a dynamic not static analysis. The IFS report is static, and thus ignores many of the second- and third-order disruptions that render this policy ridiculous.
We must absolutely be ready to write to all newly arriving MPs and highlight constituency effects, as you say.
This is an excellent article
Thanks please do share away!!
Never mind nationalising the railways and other industries, what we really need is a state monopoly of belief and childcare, perhaps with Angela Rayner in charge.
Yep, I'm off, I don't know where but somewhere will have me.
I wouldn’t be too sure of that.
Eh??!
In theory, a solely state run school system is best.
In practice, only countries like Finland and South Korea come close to pulling it off. Germany did OK up until the 80s, then politicization took over, standards collapsed and parents started to embrace private schooling, often abroad or at International schools. Merkel's open border did the rest.
So, the effect was the exact opposite of what was intended equality-wise.
All Labour's policies will achieve is, say, 10% less pupils at private schools at a 30% higher cost, meaning a further status increase of a private education, plus a further selection towards and an even bigger advantage for kids of wealthy parents.
I just want good schools.
I'm not aware of any theory that says "solely state run" is best. In my old-fashioned way, I believe education has social benefit regardless who pays, and if the private sector is willing to pay it's even better for everyone else - that speaks to the funding angle.
In terms of who provides and runs? Theories I'm aware of indicate that competition between providers would be rather handy, with parents empowered to choose. The Beautiful Tree by James Tooley is an excellent read on this subject.
Finally "the state" is what? Is it (a bit like Finland) dedicated to good child outcomes, willing to support school quality and also choice? Or is it in-tow to teaching unions and wanting to use education as a way to impose an ideology, for example a left-wing woke culture war invoking critical race theory, trans ideology and forget Mum and Dad?
I think it is rather obvious, that society and most parents would prefer to have and benefit most from a functioning equal opportunity system that as such costs them no direct fees, while simultaneously providing their children with a very good education and a meritocratic base for their further education and the therefrom resulting career regardless of which stable they come from.
Of course, the 10-20% upper middle class+ dream hording wealthy parents would rather like to pay but only and/if that provides their children with a later automatic advantage just for having attended a private school, especially nowadays in light of (their) elite overproduction and ever fewer good jobs.
Therefore, achieving the former necessitates the absence of private schooling and/or of the developed cultural preference and advantage for such graduates just because they attended a renowned private school, like in the UK.
Finland shows that this is indeed possible, Germany shows that this can be and now most often is destroyed over time and also what it, counterproductively also equality-wise, results in: a dysfunctional public school system and a flight to international and UK private schools.
The UK system is imho far too entrenched to be changed and it has also become an important industry for the country, so it better not be messed with by Labour and if it is: see my prior comment.
But meritocratically it is a nightmare, and that can be witnessed in the decline of the country, of standards, of the quality of people in charge anywhere and resultingly of most of its industries and businesses since many decades.
It is far more important here to just have been at Eton or Oxford than what you've learned there and how you passed.
And A levels from any school are just a bad joke internationally, when you have only 3 subjects over the last 2 years of which 2 can be gender studies and psychology.
Britain has become a dysfunctional mediocracy, because in no other country of the world will you find CEOs of large companies whose degrees were in English literature, but/because from Oxbridge!, or people who got a job in the City just because they went to Eton&co.
The Finnish education system is not the glittering jewel it once was (in 2000), yet the perception remains. Finland has been steadily sliding down the rankings and has dropped 56 points for English, and 79 points for maths.
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/rise-and-fall-finland-mania-part-two-why-did-scores-plummet
You "think it obvious" but you're not able to point to an actual theory that supports your claim, because it doesn't exist.
I agree with virtually none of your comment. The nice people at the Private Education Policy Forum would agree, however. Are you one of them?
Finland has better state education than UK, in general, and the schools don't cost much more to run. To the extent the state invests more in teacher training, it's paid for by taxing lower and middle earners significantly more than we do here. And there isn't "an absence of private schools". There are private schools and they don't charge VAT. There is also an entirely different culture surrounding schools, family and choice, which the progressive education Establishment strongly resists copying. If you're going to cite Finland, it's important to get these things right.
The vast majority of private schools are not Eton, the vast majority of private school children don't go on to Oxford. Anyone serious about the subject would not deal in this silly stereotypes. Further, if you're going to talk about privilege, you ought to address the elite state schools in nice catchment areas like Hampstead. It's easy to slag off independent schools if you have the luxury of a highly-exclusive state school at the end of the road.
The only thing I agree with is that we do let some state school children down. The reasons for that are extremely complicated and broad-ranging, and given many of the problems start from some families' treatment of toddlers, it's questionable whether the State can reasonably correct for them. That said, Starmer was onto something with his "oracy" stuff...to me, it's a mystery why primary school kids aren't already learning and declaiming poetry, and secondary kids arguing and debating.
It's fun and inexpensive, and there's no excuse for it not to be already happening. It's certainly not the fault of independent schools that it's not already happening.
One thing we can be absolutely certain of: the system would be worse without the disproportionate contribution of higher taxpayers reducing the burden by paying for education themselves.
Whose theory?
It may work .... for a bit. Parents may pay the fees for a short period - they have to give a term's notice so they'll be paying Autumn 2024 anyway. There will be a group that pays because they are rising 11, 16 or 18. Some will look at the options for replacement schools and decide to game admissions with housing that are done in April 2025 for September 2025.
So the impact will be much the same, but they'll try and say it's nothing to do with VAT because it didn't happen straight away.
In many cases you're probably right. The bitter truth is nobody knows.
However the flip-side of the "I'm already in the saucepan" argument, is that the fall-offs will be acute at entry years; that's what's visible if anyone actually speaks to a Bursar or Registrar; and that determines their medium-term life-death view. The application funnel 1-2 years out is dire, like (anecdotally, to me) down 10-20pc, and many parents are specifically citing this VAT issue.
For a school that's economically sketchy i.e., no endowment and no surplus, you could easily see a 2-5pc contraction makes it unviable. And if you're a prep / pre-prep and you see 10-20pc contraction at Reception and at Year 3, then you're done for within a year, perhaps 2 unless something else gives.
And as soon as that reduced year-group turns up, it will be crystal clear to parents and staff that the school's days are numbered. It only takes a handful to jump ship (beat the rush to the state school, move house to a catchment area) to administer the blow.
What's astonishing to me is how silent the schools are. They all know this is happening. It's hard for individual schools to say "I'm at risk" because it becomes self-reinforcing, but that's why there is an industry group.
Another belter. Great job. I think the greatest impact we can have on this policy is through exposing its specific localised effects. Many of its proponents consider the more destructive this is the better. But we already see the Labour party’s ineffable “fairness” calculations choosing to exempt certain children so there is some consideration of effect. We hear Phillipson claiming to be denied the treasury data therefore unable to opine on state aid for the tertiary sector yet happy to just guess when it comes to schools. This illustrates an opportunity to subject the measure to proper consultation and modelling. I think we can build that pressure by politely contacting candidates in our schools’ constituencies and our nearest state alternatives and explain our expectations that good government demands data driven decision making. In my experience they’re happy defending the principle and unhappy defending its effects on their constituencies.
Thanks, please share widely.
Great point on the "veil of Opposition". I'm certainly of the view that we should leverage Labour's explicit commitment to rely on the OBR, which some of their candidates have expressly said this policy should be subject to....
The main thing we have to watch out for is we must have a dynamic not static analysis. The IFS report is static, and thus ignores many of the second- and third-order disruptions that render this policy ridiculous.
We must absolutely be ready to write to all newly arriving MPs and highlight constituency effects, as you say.