Is private education overrated?

[Pe.A]

In reply to JR's post about grammars and academic attainment, it seems to me that Germany does it rather better. My information on this is based on a friend in Germany, some exchanges with Michael Scuffil and what I've been able to discern in research. Any one else with other info is welcome to put me right. German secondary education is called the Gymnasium system. This is nothing to do with pommel horses or parallel bars, but refers to the different educational streamings. The campus is all one but pupils are divided into a Grammar layer (Specialist, bright, and headed for a good uni), a more general intelligence layer, and a technical/vocational layer. These different specialisms go into separate buildings but on the same campus and this seems to me the important thing, because they then mingle out of class for sports, drama, hobbies, etc. As such I imagine there must be more of an inclusive feel: academics may not be sporting and vice versa, the technical people may be producing nice objets d'art, and so it becomes apparent early on in life that everyone brings something to the table. A bit like CH now I come to think of it. This is a powerful eroder of class consciousness and income inequality. Now I believe that not all states in Germany do it exactly this way because states have autonomy but this seems to me to be a typical set-up and I believe it is replicated in parts of Scandinavia. There also seems to be a bit more help with job finding after school.
It at least avoids the feeling of other, posher schools on the far side of town, and another facet is the relaxed attitude to clothing: they don't seem to have our hangup about uniforms. I don't know whether that's good or bad but it's interesting how much less of a class divide there seems to be among some of our European neighbours.

i'm excited, you're starting to get it...!!

There is actually a difference between private education and paid education., and a comprehensive and a selective system - based on different abilities and mindsets.

i n a previous post i mentioned that other European countries had multi-partite systems. The term private doesnt really refer to the fees, rather to the independent nature of the schools and their curriculum. In this country unless a school signs up to the National Curriculum they can't get State funding. Its all rather ideologically based.

The Dutch have state funded private schools. So do the French. Italy has a multi partite system. And best of all tbe Germans (I really love Germans) who have different types of secondary schools each catering to differents abilities skills and mindsets.

The problem with a one size fits all comprehensive system is that it doesnt take into account the fact that their quality is partly based on where they are located and the backgrounds of the pupils. The more affluent the area, and the average pupil in those schools, the better the schools will perform, generally. Labour politicians revelling in tbe social prestige of sending their children to State schools in leafy, well heeled London areas like Hampstead make me laugh, especially when they live in £10m townhouses etc. This in itself is a type of selection by wealth. To the point that i remember reading an article by the columnist Giles Coren bemoaning the fact that he could not get his child into his local State school in Hampstead because of the trend of rich parents buying a flat in the area specifically to get their children in.

With regards to the top private/public schools, i think the fact that the pupils tend to be from very similar backgrounds is a problem, but that is mainly down to funding. i thought you were overly cynical in a previous post scoffing at the calls from the Head of the Private School Association (or whatever theyre called) for more bursaries and assisted places, since i dont think a private school really cares about the background of the pupil, so long as theyre bright enough and the fees are covered. The problem is where the money for bursaries comes from. The beauty of CH is that apart from the historical quirk of the City Of London grant, there's also the OB contribution thing. Could Old Etonians and Harrovians be persuaded to do anything similar...? : /

For all the criticism levelled at Grammar schools and tbe way the were implemented from the 40s to tbe 60s, the fact is that in their own small, and in some senses, substantial way - they worked!
There just werent enough if them. There was no flexibility if a child failed their 11+ etc. But they were great levellers, and allowed children from modest backgrounds to punch above their proverbial weight. Even in France atm, Macron is aiming to launch 25 State boarding schools to take in children from immigrant backgrounds from the banlieues, and rural areas of France.

On a sidenote, uniforms are important. In effect they are levellers meaning children wont be judged by their peers if they wear a rubbish pair of trainers etc.

[rockfreak]

Firstly, I doubt that any Labour politicians live in £10 million town houses. Corbyn's seems to be the terraced house in Islington that he's probably lived in for years. I Iived on the borders of Camden and Islington many moons ago and Corbyn was always a well-respected constituency MP. I've never bought this jibe about champagne socialists or middle-class bon viveurs. Hugh Gaitskell was well-known for fine wining, dining and enjoyment. So long as someone has worked for their money and paid their taxes they can live where they like and drink what they want as far as I'm concerned. The German system tries, from what I can make out, to allow for late developers and changing talents. That's why the Gymnasium system is on one campus. They say that pupils, parents and the school get together to discuss these matters for the benefit of the pupil. Much more flexible than here. As to uniforms: I understand perfectly the impulse to see that ragged-ass kids aren't humiliated, but doesn't that immediately raise a chicken and egg debate? How did Germany drastically reduce the wealth and social divide so that their kids are not embarrassed in these matters while we are seeing our wealth divide go out like the tide at Southend? (ONS figures, please don't argue). I imagine because Germany has long run a properly, progressively taxed society to try and deliver equality of opportunity (as far as it can be achieved) while we still wallow in a society in hoc to Brideshead, Downton, costume dramas and other rose-tinted heritage stuff. Witness Boris, Rees Mogg, Farage et al. If we leave the EU on October 31 I predict that we shall get the national equivalent of the ice bucket challenge.

[loringa]

I imagine because Germany has long run a properly, progressively taxed society to try and deliver equality of opportunity (as far as it can be achieved) while we still wallow in a society in hoc (sic) to Brideshead, Downton, costume dramas and other rose-tinted heritage stuff.

I will make the same point as I made on another part of this forum. We already have a progressive taxation system in which, quite rightly, the better off pay a great deal more tax than lower earners. Last year (I think) John McDonnell actually stated what he thought was the salary that defined one as wealthy in the eyes of the Labour party. It was, I believe, 80,000 GBP per year on which one would currently pay marginally over 25,000 GBP in tax and NI or 31.25% of gross salary. The latest figures from the ONS (24 Jun 19) show that for those in full-time work, the average UK salary is £35,423, on which one would pay a little under 7,800 GBP in tax and NI or 22% of gross salary. The real living wage is currently 9 GBP per hour (outside London) which equates to a full time (37 hours per week for 52 weeks a year) annual salary of 17,316 GBP on which one would pay a total of just over 2003 GBP in tax and NI or about 11.5%.

From 31.25% for the officially wealthy down to 11.5% for those on the real living wage, a realistic minimum which I believe all should be entitled to expect. That is how a progressive tax system works and it is precisely what we have in this country. In Germany, basic rates of tax are around the same as in Britain (ranging from 19% to a top rate of 45%), but workers have to pay an extra 10% for state pensions, 8% for health, 1.5% for unemployment cover and 1% for care insurance. So, my question for Mr Redshaw is simply this, how would you amend our already progressive tax system to make it fairer?

[rockfreak]

I'm not just talking about income tax although even there the top band of income tax in Sweden and Denmark is about 55% as opposed to 45% here. Interestingly, the top rate here was 60% for the first nine years of Mrs Thatcher's time in office. It's really to do with tax on unearned assets, particularly housing. Land and property ownership is massively unequal and this is playing a huge part in causing dysfunction in both the economy and society generally, points I made in one of my recent letters in the Guardian. Keynes always said that it was a bad idea for the rich to have too much money. After a certain point they turned to speculation rather than enterprise. According to the last OECD research that I saw, when you take all forms of taxation into account (income, local, VAT, assets) we are still in the lower taxing half of the G10 table. As far as the Germans paying more tax for pensions, this is surely a good thing isn't it?

[loringa]

I'm not just talking about income tax although even there the top band of income tax in Sweden and Denmark is about 55% as opposed to 45% here. Interestingly, the top rate here was 60% for the first nine years of Mrs Thatcher's time in office. It's really to do with tax on unearned assets, particularly housing. Land and property ownership is massively unequal and this is playing a huge part in causing dysfunction in both the economy and society generally, points I made in one of my recent letters in the Guardian. Keynes always said that it was a bad idea for the rich to have too much money. After a certain point they turned to speculation rather than enterprise. According to the last OECD research that I saw, when you take all forms of taxation into account (income, local, VAT, assets) we are still in the lower taxing half of the G10 table. As far as the Germans paying more tax for pensions, this is surely a good thing isn't it?

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you say here, particularly your comment about it being bad for the rich to have too much money. The issue is really who one considers to be 'rich' and how much property and other assets is 'too much'. I can really only speak from my own experience but, having had the benefit of a stable family life and a good education, I have, through honest labour, earned pretty much everything I now have. On the one hand, I am happy to pay more than most in taxes as I have more than most, but equally I am not prepared to be bled dry (even to fund what I would consider to be worthy causes: health and education for a start). We have considerable inequality in our society but it will not be resolved simply, as Mr Corbyn insists again and again, by milking the middle classes (or which I am clearly one as must, by definition, be all Old Blues). The poor pay little tax because they can't afford to and the rich pay little because they can afford not to; I am happy to pay my share but I want my share to be a fair one and I also want the opportunity to choose where I spend the rest. As for paying more for pensions, yes - it is a good thing as Mr Osborn would, no doubt, have agreed.

[sejintenej]

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you say here, particularly your comment about it being bad for the rich to have too much money. The issue is really who one considers to be 'rich' and how much property and other assets is 'too much'. I can really only speak from my own experience but, having had the benefit of a stable family life and a good education, I have, through honest labour, earned pretty much everything I now have. On the one hand, I am happy to pay more than most in taxes as I have more than most, but equally I am not prepared to be bled dry (even to fund what I would consider to be worthy causes: health and education for a start). We have considerable inequality in our society but it will not be resolved simply, as Mr Corbyn insists again and again, by milking the middle classes (or which I am clearly one as must, by definition, be all Old Blues). The poor pay little tax because they can't afford to and the rich pay little because they can afford not to; I am happy to pay my share but I want my share to be a fair one and I also want the opportunity to choose where I spend the rest. As for paying more for pensions, yes - it is a good thing as Mr Osborn would, no doubt, have agreed.

It is one thing to allocate resources to (say) schools but the record shows tht it is not the declared recipient which gets the money but civil servants in the ministry, top nobs etc with only a minor part going to the declared recipients. We simply cannot trust those in authority not to feather their own nests. With the last Labour government they publicly stated that they had the funds to allocate to the beneficiary of the moment. A short time later another be#neficioary and the Labour prty had found the funds but without saying that they were raiding the funds said to be for good clause number one. Then they did it again. Smoke and mirrors.

[Phil]

One can argue about how ‘progressive’ a ‘progressive’ income tax system is. One can compare percentages of income taxes in different countries at different income levels and this has been done.

But what is more important is the salary divide. Now the most highly paid earn far more than the average, in almost all companies and industries. This multiple has both steadily and immorally increased greatly in the last few decades. Why? Mainly because those who decide such things could become the recipients of excessive salaries. Other important considerations are the taxes on ‘unearned’ income and the avoidance of death duties, both of which contribute much to the gross inequality, so deplored by some.

As for where and how politicians live, in dim and distant past days their private addresses (and for that matter their private lives) remained private, even if known by yellow press (that dates me) journalists. For example Harry Pollitt (that dates me even more) lived in Hampstead Garden Suburb. He was the Secretary-General (ie dictator) of the UK Communist Party, in days when, with two vociferous MPs in the Commons after the election of 1945, that party meant something.

'O tempora, O mores!' (Cicero) But for those with a bit more Latin, 'Ad mores natura recurrit damnatos, fixa et mutari nescia,' (Juvenal)

[rockfreak]

On the subject of the wealth divide Phil, in his book "The Great Crash 1929" the American Keynesian economist JK Galbraith (Roosevelt's lieutenant in the New Deal and economic advisor to several US presidents) after having researched booms and busts through history, discerned that a huge wealth divide was always there when such a syndrome took place. I bought a copy of his book after the 2007/2008 crash and his son James (also an economist) wrote in the forward to this recent reprint that it was certainly there in the recent crash along with other issues like a slackening of the anti-trust laws (leading to companies, financial and commercial, that were too big to fail) and a general encouragement by government for people to "get rich quick". As Polly Toynbee in the Guardian once observed, this led to what she called the "desert caravan syndrome": the strong camels at the front forged ahead while the weaker ones at the back struggled and then got bogged down in the sand, thus blowing the caravan apart. This is probably why some other western European countries were hardly affected. There is less inequality. I remember once mentioning the much vaunted "global financial crisis" and Michael Scuffil posted back from his eyrie in Deutschland: "What crisis? We didn't feel it here".

[rockfreak]

On the subject of "one size fits all" comprehensives in the UK, this is simply not the case these days. My daughters went to a local compre (one ending up at Uni with a degree, another training to be a teacher via Open University) and they were setted by subject. In other words, if you were good at Maths you went into the A set for the Maths period and if not so good at English into the C set for English. It seems to me that it suits both the fee-paying schools and the Grammar school protagonists to pretend otherwise. I don't have a problem with academic selection by subject but I do have a problem with youngsters from a locality going onto a different campus in the morning.