Council tax and new ways..........

[John Cartmell]

Raising Of the School Leaving Age. Led to much new building to house extra sec mod pupils.

[John Cartmell]

taken from the above entry on the Tripartite system:

"The technical school was designed to train children adept in mechanical and scientific subjects. Planned as an equal tier of the system alongside the grammar schools and the secondary moderns, shortages in funding led to technical schools being provided on a limited scale. Catering for around 5% of the school population, the focus of the schools was on providing scientists, engineers and technicians."

The one thing this country needed was the one thing that was done hopelessly badly. If half of the best pupils had been able to go to technical schools funded as well as the (better funded) grammar schools we might just have been able to stave off the bad condition of our industry by the 60s or 70s and (wait for it) have a technology literate population.

[John Cartmell]

I'd agree. But we'd probably disagree about which most feels the effect of privatisation. BT was able to develop slowly into a private industry because of its early start in the 60s. Even so its service is far worse then 40 years ago when you could get straight through to the individual dealing with your account (answered before 3rd ring) and check your account, the history of your bill, find the price for an external extension, get a correct answer first time, and put in an order for one - all within a matter of minutes. If you had to call back you would be rmembered by name and number. If your bill went up exceptionally you would be contacted before the bill was sent out and asked if you had made exceptional calls that quarter so that errors could be put right without a complaint.

Have you tried doing any of that recently? Hint: put plenty of time aside for your attempt and be prepared to be disappointed.

GPO? They're expected to run a service after their profitable business has been hived off. Stupid.

No. You have the same electricity and gas suppliers. You have a choice of who chrages you for it and they all seem to be lying conmen.

I wish I got the same service that I got in the 70s.

[John Cartmell]

But that's only because the gvernment starved the Railways of investment in the good years as well as the bad. The investment still comes from the government - but this government is paying it and making up for (some of) the loss of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s which is a lot to make up.

[Andy Hall]

Not my experience. Users were subscribers, not customers, and this reflected in the attitude towards them. There was no competition and it took a long time to get issues addressed.

I can remember having numerous billing errors and many arguments on that subject.

Yes, although I have to say that I have found it to be a rare occurence.

That depends on your definition of "supplier". I am using the strict definition, meaning the organisations with whom I have the contracts to supply. I have many choices. I can go for the cheapest on the day, the one that provides the best service by way of someone to talk to, the one with the best green policy or I can take a punt on future pricing. If I don't like the current one, I can switch to another.

I've moved on from there and don't accept poor service at all.....

[Mark]

I think the governornment should have some influence over education. We do need a strategic national plan. Is it really desirable for education to diverge in different schools. This would make it particularly difficult for children moving schools if the education was different.

This could not happen. I'll put it yet another way: If the government is only contributing (financially) to places within the state education system and they start contributing to places within the current private section then this will mean they are contributing to more places. Therefore there will be less money per child.

More children does mean more money. However if you have to employ more staff this will offset the increased revenue. In this position the only way would be to replace good highly paid teachers with lower paid teachers.

What are you drinking? ;-)

I would like to see more freedom without dumping a National Curriculum. However it should be less prescriptive to give good teaching a chance to show.

I can see situations where it would.

This is no consolation for someone whose local school closes and they have to travel 10 miles to the next one!

What are the ranges of fees charged by typical private schools. Are they less than the equivalent spent in a state school?

Mark.

[Andy Hall]

As a stakeholder perhaps, but to note greater degree than parents or the educators themselves, and certainly not entrusted with dictating policy. The point is that it should be outside of political control.

At a very high level and in broad terms yes. To the level of detail and micromanagement of the national curriculum, definitely not.

Yes, definitely, that would be a positive thing.

There needs to be some degree of transportability I agree, but this does not mean that all need to be the same.

No. The amount of money is the same (except for inflation etc.). The number of children is the same. Therefore the amount per child (if indeed that is the right measure to use, which I am not sure about), remains the same.

I didn't suggest employing more staff except as implied by a school teaching more children than before because it is doing a good job.

Anything you're prepared to buy me :-)

The previous method of having a syllabus for each subject and different examining boards was quite effective. It means that schools can offer a range of courses or pick a few to different levels according to demand.

I would rather deal with the corner cases by making funds available for children of lower income families with certain abilities to receive an education appropriate to maximising their potential than to reduce the potential of all by attempting to make a one size fits all and dragging down everybody.

I don't see why. I used to travel about that and it was worth it because I was able to get the most appropriate choices.

Return doesn't come without some effort. Clearly it is not practicable to provide a broad range of choices within a two minute walk in all cases. I would rather see some travel inconvenience if it means high quality and appropriate education, properly equipped.

It can be from DC to light. However, one can't compare just on a simple cash basis. One has to look on a cost basis to make a comparison. Certainly it is true that the private sector tends to have smaller class sizes and that obviously comes with a cost.

The money going to the state system is derived from taxation.

That going to private schools usually comes out of net income. This means that it has been taxed (often at 40%) and national insurance and employer's national insurance paid as well. Then consider that the school usually does not benefit from the money that would have gone to a state school educating that child.

Therefore in essence, the state takes the money and then taxes the parent for making the choice to educate their child elsewhere.

That is one of the reasons why I think that the state should not be in the education delivery business.

The funds that are collected in tax should be available to go to a school regardless of whether the state, a trust, a charity or a private organisation runs it.

Moreover, if a parent chooses to supplement such funding at a school of their choice, then that should be tax deductable, not an object of taxation.

[Roger]

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

Doesn't seem that way to me. AIUI you have been arguing all along for those children who are currently educated privately to be subsidised by the state to the same extent as those who get educated by the state. Ergo the same money is then spread over a larger population.

[Andy Hall]

[Andy Hall]

No, because I also said that the state should remove the additional taxation that it places on people paying school fees. That money goes into education. The difference is that it doesn't go through the bureaucracy of the state machinery.

I also don't regard the state paying the amount that would have gone into the state sector for educating a child, but which instead goes to an alternative outside the state sector as a subsidy. That gives credence to the notion that the state should be the be all and end all in delivery of services as well as the vehicle to fund them. I don't accept that notion.

[Roger]

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

Except that it doesn't place any additional taxation on those who chose to opt out of state education. You get taxed the same whether your children go to state schools or not just as you get taxed the same whether you have children or not. The real losers are those without children who have to subsidise the sometimes extravagant lifestyles of those with children who have both a higher income and a higher standard of living.

Of course it is a subsidy.

Now I have a much better plan. All parents should shoulder the total cost of educating their grungy offspring and stop sponging off those who don't have children. As a committed capitalist you should immediately endorse such a plan. ;-)

[andy hall]

That depends on which parts of the chain that you consider. If you look narrowly at only the issue of money earned and money available for spending, that is perfectly true.

However, the real picture is that money is simply a mean of exchange in respect of goods and services, not an end in itself. The starting point is what do I have to do in terms of my means of earning (could be hours worked, type of work or business activity etc) to achieve the end result - in this case education for the kids.

As things stand, the state takes a large amount of money, subtracts bureaucratic waste leaving less money and places it in some way in state run education giving the customer who has paid for it extremely little choice and not a very good outcome. If I want to choose a more appropriate form of education because I believe that investment in the future of my kids is important, I still have to pay for the state stuff, but then, out of income that is already taxed at 50%+ to pay for the fees in a private school.

This is a complete nonsense. It is both wasteful and inefficient at delivering the appropriate end result for the child.

I've simply suggested

- a voucher system that provides users of education with an amount of money that can only be spent on education at a school of their choice. The point is that the government does not need to be in the delivery business, only the funding.

- tax relief on school fees. This would be implemented in such a way that the tax relief goes to the school rather than to the parent.

One never has a high standard of living with children........

I don't see it as such. A subsidy is something used to prop up a business that isn't viable, usually for political reasons. This is simply an acceptance of the reasonable notion that the state does not need to be in the delivery business of state funded services. Quite different.

Of course capitalism has stood the test of time, is in line with human nature as well as that of the rest of the animal kingdom but that's another issue.

If the state were to get out of the delivery *and* the funding businesses, especially in the areas of healthcare and education, then such notions start to become affordable. Since both, for most people are things which tend to have high cost for some of the time and little or no cost for most of the time (looking on a lifelong basis), I see no reason not to fund them using investment vehicles in a similar way to funding retirement. (leaving aside the specific issues of pension schemes.)

[Roger]

The message from "andy hall" contains these words:

However you dress it up you are still arguing for a subsidy for private education. Don't get me wrong. I am all in favour of a system where parents pay for their childrens education but vouchers don't achieve that aim as they would be paid for out of general taxation, not the parents private pocket.

As things stand the state takes from most of us and concentrates much of its expenditure on the health, education and welfare of a much more limited subset, namely parents and children.

If some chose not to have children why should their (possibly) small incomes be taxed so your children can have a privileged education. Just be thankful you you have a large enough income to attract the 40% top rate of income tax.

I suspect that you have been seduced by your own rhetoric. AIUI unit costs in state schools are lower than unit costs in private schools.

But it still either takes money away from those who cannot afford the additional cost that private schools entail or requires additional funds from the taxpayer to subsidise those who attend private schools.

Other things being equal one persons tax relief is anothers tax increase.

That depends on your perspective but children are a voluntary addition to your establishment.

Subsidy can have a broader meaning than you claim. The difference you are trying to hide is the extra funding required to subsidise parents who opt to have their children educated privately. They don't have to opt out but if they do they should stop moaning about the consequences.

Other issue? I thought the subject was fairness in apportioning educational costs. What could be fairer than making parents pay for the education their children receive?

I don't buy the idea that the state services could miraculously become much more efficient just by transferring them to the private sector. Private schools and hospitals already exist. Unit costs in private schools (albeit for a better service) are certainly higher and if they weren't in private hospitals why is it that the private hospitals that have a very nice line in a guaranteed level of routine scheduled operations get more for each operation than the NHS hospitals would have if the operation had stayed in house? (And don't get me started on PFI.)

As for pension schemes. Those for the really rich are obscene and tax relief on the millions set aside for that purpose by the fat cats is quite unnecessary. Those who enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle while they are working are not going to be so short sighted that they don't make some provision for their retirement. Imagine a captain of industry retiring with just an old age pension of say £75 per week to live on - no chance. They would be extremely distressed on twice that (and no chance of any means tested benefits) or even 10 times that.

[Mark]

Why would children need to learn different things in different schools?

See my previous post.

See my previous posts.

How would you avoid employing more staff?

I think it should be the other way around. You seem to have a larger disposable income than me.

Safety nets for poorer people rarely work in practise. The criteria for means testing is always too crude and the money available too little.

I don't know what you mean by "dragging down everybody".

You obviously had the choice. Many are not so fortunate.

Again this is your personal opinion. Many would not want or be able to pay for this.

Some might think that you are just selecting a system that would benefit you personally and not one that suits the country as a whole.

Mark.

[John Cartmell]

In the long run of things the contribution such people make to the future may be limited to the good that taxation can produce.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

I am sure that response must have a meaning hidden therein but I can't work out what it is.

[John Cartmell]

People with no kids and no interest with other people's kids aren't leaving much of any worth for the future. At least their taxes might do some good for future generations.

[Brian Sharrock]

Ever since Barbara Castle broke the individual piggy-banks to cater for inflation, 1975(?), the 'Old Age Pension' -or whatever it's called this week- has been paid from _current_ income. You - that's you and me- haven't got a pot of money that 'We've been paying into all our (working) lives'. It doesn't exist! It's all been spent! It has paid the pensions of our parents! Unless we've bred children to pay National Insurance 'Contributions' during our retirement - the money won't be available to pay out during our retirement. So by extension "People with no kids " should be excluded from State pensions, etc. etc.

[andy hall]

I think that this is a matter of definition and understanding. Once you accept the notion that the state can be one delivery vehicle for a service as well as other constructs such as charitable trusts and the private sector, then it is no longer a subsidy.

I would prefer that there were an arrangement such that people are more free to choose where their hard earned money is spent. However, a voucher system does at least ensure that money is ringfenced for a specific service, because unfortunately there are people who would not provide for their children's education or for healthcare.

Mmm.. and that is far from being a fair distribution of resources.

I don't disagree with the notion of paying for what one uses. However, I don't regard education as a privilege. I do think that appropriate education for the child should be available and that it's quite reasonable for the state to pay for some of that and the parents to supplement that if they choose. What is totally wrong is paying twice.

There's nothing attractive about 40% tax and this is not that unusual any more. The thresholds are far too low. Same with national insurance contribution.

I don't deal in rhetoric.....

That could be. On the one hand, classes are generally smaller. However, this is offset to some extent by the lack of bureaucracy.

No it doesn't. Once you get past the notion that the alternatives are the state being the collector of money and deliverer of service and a paid private sector, to one where funding and delivery are separated; with the state perhaps owning one method of delivery (but better independent trusts for former state schools) and then charitable trusts and private sector, there are many more options available and flexibility on how money is spent.

No, remember that money is a form of exchange only. The purpose here is to pay for education. If the funding can go directly from the person earning the money to the delivery of education, (remember I said that said tax relief is for education use), then the net effect is to cut out the bureaucracy in the middle and to direct some civil servants towards gainful employment.

True enough. This is another argument for less involvement of the state as an intermediary.

Sigh.... I am not trying to hid anything. This is not subsidy of the private sector, it is a broadening of the available vehicles for delivery of education and removal of what amounts to a near state monopoly with penalties for choice. There is no justification for such a monopoly because it drags the majority of the population, regardless of means into unsuitable education.

That depends on how much one is prepared to sacrifice or not for a child's future. The state should certainly not penalise choice.

I thought that you were mentioning capitalism in general at this point.

There are various types of status that an organisation can have outside of state control. One is charitable trust, another is non-profit corporation. I don't equate "private" as meaning "for-profit" - not that there is anything wrong with profit. I am certain that in education, management on a school level would provide a much better arrangement without the overhead of national and local civil servants who add little or no value.

Presumably because they won't do the work at the price point that the NHS funding machine would otherwise wish to pay. As we've already established, the NHS is the largest employer in western Europe and the third largest in the world. It's a complete nonsense and a huge waste. take a look at dentistry. It's practically non existent in the NHS because dentists are not willing to work for the kind of money on offer. Remove the bureaucracy and much more money goes to the point of delivery.

[Roger]

The message from John Cartmell contains these words:

That's just the selfish way of looking at the future. What they are doing (apart from whatever worth there was in the work they did) is making this already grossly overpopulated world take just a little bit longer before it reaches the tipping point into total anarchy brought about by the twin problems of unrestrained reproduction and exhaustion of natural resources.