It is of course simply a lie to suggest, as David Lyscom of the Independent Schools Council does, that commercial centres of education, quite the most vulgar institutions imaginable, save the taxpayer money. Their tax perks, for doing nothing more than sending Christmas hampers to their local old folk’s homes, cost the Treasury vastly more than would the integration of six or seven per cent of children into the public service sector.
But it is of course perfectly true that “modern languages, individual sciences, economics, advanced maths” and so many other things are being, or have already been, driven out of the civic and academic realm and into that of trade, with all that that will entail (if it has not already) for which languages are taught and how, for how the sciences are taught, for what is deemed to be economics or advanced maths, and so on.
There is a solution to this.
Grammar schools.
And with them, the higher standards across the board that they delivered, and continue to deliver in the few places fortunate enough still to have them, notably Kent, where the campaign against Thatcher’s comps was for so long spearheaded by the late Eric Hammond.
Comprehensivisation has been, and remains, much beloved of the nastiest, most tribal Tories. It saved mercantile schools, and it is still what keeps ninety per cent of them in business. It also suits the intensely nasty and tribal New Labour down to the ground, allowing them to pretend to be sending to children to “comprehensive” schools when in fact the institutions in question are indistinguishable from their profit-driven counterparts, on account (so to speak) of tiny catchment areas within which house prices are out of this world, or complicated feeder primary arrangements, or so many other dastardly devices.
Ministerial defence of the grammar schools came from “Red Ellen” Wilkinson of the Jarrow Crusade, and from George Tomlinson. Academic defence came from Sidney Webb and R H Tawney. Vigorous practical defence came from Labour councillors and activists around the country, not least while Thatcher, as Education Secretary, was closing so many that there were not enough left at the end for her record ever to be equalled. Of Kent and Eric Hammond, we have already spoken. The Gymnasien were restored by popular demand, as soon as the Berlin Wall came down, in what is still the very left-wing former East Germany. And they were successfully defended by the general populace in the Social Democratic heartland of North Rhine-Westphalia.
This is a cause of the Left against Thatcherism and Blairism alike. Let us take it up as such.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Their tax perks, for doing nothing more than sending Christmas hampers to their local old folk’s homes, cost the Treasury vastly more than would the integration of six or seven per cent of children into the public service sector."
ReplyDeleteI've always understood this not to be the case - whether or not you like independent schools or not. If you have contradictory data, I'd be very keen to see it.
Please don't say something along the lines of "well everyone knows it, and you love independent schools", as I don't know it (hence me asking for it) and I dislike independent schoiols.
"I've always understood this not to be the case"
ReplyDeleteWhy?
I'm afraid you are wrong. Total tax breaks for the independent sector around £1.6bn (source: Institute of Chartered Accountants). Total cost of educating 7% of population in state schools - £3bn (source: DCSF, made up by calculating pupil numbers against per pupil spend in 2009/10)
ReplyDelete"Institute of Chartered Accountants"
ReplyDeleteAll part of the family.
Which I see that I have managed to annoy.
The Independent Schools Council have also calculated a similar figure - and before you leap in, the report is public, as is the methodology, and I have never read of any criticism of the calculation from peer reviewed economists. The report and underlying figures are on their website.
ReplyDeleteKeep at them David. Note how they can't read past the first paragraph. Never needed to learn. Top jobs already lined up for them.
ReplyDelete"I have never read of any criticism of the calculation from peer reviewed economists"
ReplyDeleteWell, of course not. It's a dream come true to them. All they have to do is repeat the ISC's own figures. Who needs to do any research?
Jim, anything, anything at all, to avoid discussing their very worst nightmare, the return of the grammar schools.
How many of these "peer reviewed economists" went to private schools? How many send their children to private schools?
ReplyDelete"How many of these "peer reviewed economists" went to private schools?"
ReplyDeleteMost of them.
"How many send their children to private schools?"
All of them.
Now, about grammar schools...
"Now, about grammar schools..."
ReplyDeleteThat seems to have silenced them.
No suprise there, Mark.
ReplyDeleteTake, for example, this paragraph:
"Ministerial defence of the grammar schools came from “Red Ellen” Wilkinson of the Jarrow Crusade, and from George Tomlinson. Academic defence came from Sidney Webb and R H Tawney. Vigorous practical defence came from Labour councillors and activists around the country, not least while Thatcher, as Education Secretary, was closing so many that there were not enough left at the end for her record ever to be equalled. Of Kent and Eric Hammond, we have already spoken. The Gymnasien were restored by popular demand, as soon as the Berlin Wall came down, in what is still the very left-wing former East Germany. And they were successfully defended by the general populace in the Social Democratic heartland of North Rhine-Westphalia."
It might as well be in Swahili, for all that they can make of it. Some time ago, I remember Jon (whatever happened to Jon?) berating me for referring to someone as "obscure" as Eric Hammond. And Hammond was still alive at the time. So imagine how Ellen Wilkinson, George Tomlinson, Sidney Webb or R H Tawney would have to be described. Could they even find a word?
Can something be "vulgar" and "elite" at the same time? Which is worse?
ReplyDeleteThe best schools in the country are fee-paying schools. The worst are state schools.
Is the ICAEW really part of some sort of conspiracy that publishes false statistics? Are you an accountant? Do you have more reliable statistics?
Grammar schools only ever helped a small minority of the population. Most of the people who were at grammar schools are now opposed to them.
It was Old Labour that introduced comprehensive education.
Tony Blair promised to do away with "bog standard" comprehensives.
It's strange that you don't seem able to come up with a figure let alone a method of your own. Are you suggesting that the ICA has simply coooked the figures? Why don't you publish an expose of their fraud? It would give a lot of publicity to your campaign in North-West Durham, even if you're bankrupted with heavy libel costs.
ReplyDeleteAll right, if we still have to play this silly little game: they are only counting the VAT exemption on fees, not the exemption from business rates, not the exemption of resident staff from Council Tax, not the exemption for corporation tax, not the ability to claim back VAT, not the mandatory grants to train the teachers, and so on, and on, and on. Like private medicine saving the NHS money, it is just a plain and simple lie.
ReplyDelete"Can something be "vulgar" and "elite" at the same time?"
Probably not. Private schools are just vulgar, not elite.
"The best schools in the country are fee-paying schools. The worst are state schools."
Only measured according to a thoroughly debased exam system and admission to two closed shop universities.
"Grammar schools only ever helped a small minority of the population."
No they didn't. Standards were higher across the board, as they still are where grammar schools still exist. You are just frightened of them because they would put private schools out of business. Even Oxbridge couldn't fill all their places from the couple of dozen that would be left.
"Most of the people who were at grammar schools are now opposed to them."
How do you know? I can't imagine that you have met very many.
"It was Old Labour that introduced comprehensive education."
No it didn't. The first ones were in Tory LEAs, and it was Margaret Thatcher who closed most of them by Ministerial fiat. Under her and Major as PM, not a single one ever opened. The Tories recently voted for a Government Bill banning the creation of any more.
Whereas Ellen Wilkinson and George Tomlinson had defended them Ministerially. Sidney Webb and R H Tawney had defended them academically. And numerous Labour councillors and activists defended them practically, above all against Thatcher. Would that they had succeeded.
"Tony Blair promised to do away with "bog standard" comprehensives."
Take it up with him.
"All right, if we still have to play this silly little game: they are only counting the VAT exemption on fees, not the exemption from business rates, not the exemption of resident staff from Council Tax, not the exemption for corporation tax, not the ability to claim back VAT, not the mandatory grants to train the teachers, and so on, and on, and on. Like private medicine saving the NHS money, it is just a plain and simple lie"
ReplyDeleteSorry - this is factually unture. It does include both exmption from other taxes and the ability to claim back VAT, and there are no mandatory training grants for teachers.
There is a mandatory grant for a PGCE, just as if all the changes to HE funding over the last 25 years had never happened. Yet there is no obligation to work in the state sector even for a year to repay the moral, even if not the financial, debt.
ReplyDeleteYou don't actually need one to teach in either sector (contrary to what is often assumed), but they seem to be converging on that point, with an increasing expectation of it in commercial schools and an increasing willingness to waive it in public service schools.
If you can't even get this right, Pirt...
We're at risk of getting diverted down a side road, but the reason why you can't count the teacher training grant is because there is no extra cost to the state of educating teachers who go into the private sector, because if there were no private sector than the pupils would have to be in the state sector as well, and those teachers would be needed anyway. So there is no additionality.
ReplyDeleteI note you didn't answer my point about your factually incorrect statement on exemption of other taxes, however?
"We're at risk of getting diverted down a side road"
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't know what you are talking about, you don't like your privileges being challenged, and you don't like being told how vulgar you are.
The rest is utter drivel: how many public service schools are there around any commercial one? Integrating the latter's pupils into the former would involve employing no additional teaching staff whatever.
So I say again, you don't know what you are talking about, you don't like your privileges being challenged, and you don't like being told how vulgar you are.
Which is why you don't like grammar schools. Indeed, will not even discuss them.
I am puzzled by your opposition to private schools. Why shouldn't they get tax breaks? Does something stop being of public benefit because its services have to be paid for? Who's making a killing on running them?
ReplyDelete(I went to a state secondary school)
Who makes a killing from running them? Have you ever even seen one?
ReplyDeleteYes, indeedy. In fact, I was in one a week ago, and thought "If I marry, and we're graced with children, and some of them are boys, I want to send them here".
ReplyDeleteI was sent to a state school because it would have been very difficult for my parents to send both daughters to private schools, and they decided we were bright enough to survive with what the local secondary could offer. I don't regret their decision.
Parents are the primary educators of their children, remember? Are you proposing to introduce tax rebates for folk who don't send their kids to state schools, to counter the increase in fees that removing charitable status would bring? Does something cease to be of public benefit because it charges for its services? Or perhaps one ceases to be a member of the public if one's children go to private schools?
It's a *good* thing that there are non-state options for educating one's children. Private schools are a help to parents in meeting their obligations to their children.
And I still don't know who is making a killing out of running these things. Presumably charitable status means no-one can skim off profit, but only be paid a salary, no?
Quite a salary, in many cases.
ReplyDeleteWith a few super-posh exceptions, private schools provide what the State used to, but now refuses to. The State should stop so refusing, so that selection is once again academic, not by parental income.
I still fail to see what your problem is.
ReplyDelete(I've no problem with state-sponsored grammar schools either, in case you thought I was objecting to that)