Schooliform

[Rusty Nails]

Ah, so we are now at the stage in the discussion where any proponents of a system MUST be wrong because something completely different didn't work



Yes...but I'm a random guy who gas bothered to find out what this is all about.

Anyway...back from pub.

Rationale is thusly:

RTL system adopted in schools wishing to improve results, deal with poor behaviour, and change culture of students (and staff) to be more aspirational, rather than education being something done to them.

This is all off the back of some report commissioned by Ofsted 5 years ago, can't remember name of author.

RTL tries to remove all opportunity for arguing the toss over anything at all so that energies go in to learning and culture becomes co-operative rather than adversarial.

Uniform is part of UK school culture, so unless it is to be abandoned entirely it has to fit in with RTL systems. There is also a desire for a strong individual school identity too.

The results of this system have been remarkable when applied well, and lots of schools have been 'turned around'. Highly likely to become the predominant system in UK.

Daughter's original secondary school was indeed fûcked. Academy sponsor pushed out old head and insisted on RTL system.

So there you are, from the horses mouth.

From the little I have read I am not aware the RTL recommends a uniform policy, just that a school culture should make everyone feel they are treated fairly and can concentrate on their learning with as few distractions/conflicts as possible, whether there is a uniform or not.

I may be wrong as my kids left school in the last century.

 

[multitool]

From the little I have read I am not aware the RTL recommends a uniform policy, just that a school culture should make everyone feel they are treated fairly and can concentrate on their learning with as few distractions/conflicts as possible, whether there is a uniform or not.

I may be wrong as my kids left school in the last century.

I think the point is there IS uniform in UK schools, and therefore to be in line with RTL it has to not be a source of argument and conflict.

Which is pretty much what I have been saying all along.

As an aside, and in response to Fozy's remark about school discipline being a right-wing Daily Mail attribute, I think its important to say that no, it isn't.

I can't see that there is anything left-wing about allowing state school kids to leave school with shìt outcomes because they have spent 5 years being allowed to píss about. Seems like an abdication of responsibility to me, and plays into the hands of those employers who want a weakened, poorly educated and desperate work force for their zero hours minimum wage jobs. It is, in political terms working very much against the interests of the working class.

 

[icowden]

It’s not MY measuring tape.
Merely a request for clarity.

No, it was a deliberate dig. You may have missed the part of my post where I mentioned that my own schooling at a single sex public school was solely down to the assisted places scheme that Labour abolished. Public schools do now offer scholarships which reduce fees and bursaries for those who cannot afford fees.

Presumably, not everyone in the South East lives in a £1m house?

We've covered this, but inheritance tax kicks in at a lot less than a million. Your threshold increases to £500,000 if your estate is less than £2mil and you leave the home to your children or grandchildren. The spousal inherited amount increasing that to £1m only applies if the first spouse to die leaves everything to their surviving spouse. In Surrey the average house price is £631,000, in the South East £530,000, in London £724,000.

If your spouse has already died before 2020, tough.

 

[icowden]

You must know the definition of sop.

Yes, and you must know that the immediate removal of charitable status or VAT from private schools would severely damage the education of many children.

 

[multitool]

Yes, and you must know that the immediate removal of charitable status or VAT from private schools would severely damage the education of many children.

But that wouldn't be the only outcome, would it.

 

[BoldonLad]

No, it was a deliberate dig. You may have missed the part of my post where I mentioned that my own schooling at a single sex public school was solely down to the assisted places scheme that Labour abolished. Public schools do now offer scholarships which reduce fees and bursaries for those who cannot afford fees.


We've covered this, but inheritance tax kicks in at a lot less than a million. Your threshold increases to £500,000 if your estate is less than £2mil and you leave the home to your children or grandchildren. The spousal inherited amount increasing that to £1m only applies if the first spouse to die leaves everything to their surviving spouse. In Surrey the average house price is £631,000, in the South East £530,000, in London £724,000.

If your spouse has already died before 2020, tough.

The mechanism of inheritance tax is not relevant, it is the use of arbitrary terms such as “poor”, “rich”, “wealthy”, by yourself and others.

To return, more or less to the subject, the objective should be to raise educational standards and outcomes for everyone. The trick is, how to do it. Funding is doubtless part of it, but, as with many things in life, it is just a little more complex than throwing money at it ( or “investing” as some posters like to call it).

 

[Rusty Nails]

Yes, and you must know that the immediate removal of charitable status or VAT from private schools would severely damage the education of many children.

They are not charities out of any wish to benefit any society other than their own privileged society. They provide some scholarships as a sop to persuade people otherwise. If they really were that philanthropic they would surely find ways of offering scholarships to the children of deserving poor and struggling families, even without charitable status. Their grateful alumni would surely dip their hands in their very deep pockets, made even deeper by the education they received, to fund it.

If your kids benefit from it, and you have been in a position to benefit from it, fine, I can understand your liking of the private school sector, but the fact that kids, usually from ambitious families in the right places and in the know, have to do this to get the scraps from the top table of our education system is a blot on our state education system.

 

[icowden]

They are not charities out of any wish to benefit any society other than their own privileged society. They provide some scholarships as a sop to persuade people otherwise. If they really were that philanthropic they would surely find ways of offering scholarships to the children of deserving poor and struggling families, even without charitable status. Their grateful alumni would surely dip their hands in their very deep pockets, made even deeper by the education they received, to fund it.

I don't disagree with you but there is a limit to what public schools will do. I don't actually have a problem with Labour removing charitable status or VAT exemptions provided that they work out how to do it without disrupting children's education. For example it would at least need to be phased in over time, or undertakings required from the schools that fees will not rise for children already at the school especially those in GCSE or A-Level years. I see no plans for this from Labour.

 

[newfhouse]

I don't actually have a problem with Labour removing charitable status or VAT exemptions provided that they work out how to do it without disrupting children's education.

Imagine the horror of parents having to make sacrifices for their kids, being forced to drive a slightly less fashionable car to the school gates or forgoing their third foreign holiday of the year.

If the schools really are charities they will presumably make sure anyone genuinely in financial distress will be taken care of, no? Maybe they could do some fundraising like state schools are forced to do to pay for exercise books and pens.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I don't disagree with you but there is a limit to what public schools will do. I don't actually have a problem with Labour removing charitable status or VAT exemptions provided that they work out how to do it without disrupting children's education. For example it would at least need to be phased in over time, or undertakings required from the schools that fees will not rise for children already at the school especially those in GCSE or A-Level years. I see no plans for this from Labour.

I see no great problem with giving those already in the system notice that they have time to finish their education together with an immediate financial support stop for any new entrants.

I am not surprised that you have seen no plans for this from Labour as they are not very keen on putting any specifics on their broad aims at this time.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Imagine the horror of parents having to make sacrifices for their kids, being forced to drive a slightly less fashionable car to the school gates or forgoing their third foreign holiday of the year.

If the schools really are charities they will presumably make sure anyone genuinely in financial distress will be taken care of, no? Maybe they could do some fundraising like state schools are forced to do to pay for exercise books and pens.

I know two families with children at local private schools. They struggle to do so, and certainly do not have multi foreign holidays a year, but they have bought into the belief that it will give their kids a better education and better prospects for the future, and were prepared to make some sacrifices.

I think it will be unnecessarily punitive to those kids and their families to kick their legs from underneath them at this stage of their, already started, education. The kids are not at fault, and I am not sure I can blame parents for wanting the best for their kids. Many parents in the state school system use their wealth to benefit their kids e.g. getting tutors, better access to books/IT etc., moving house to be in a better school's catchment area.

It would be a huge change to many schools which cannot be implemented overnight.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Imagine the horror of parents having to make sacrifices for their kids, being forced to drive a slightly less fashionable car to the school gates or forgoing their third foreign holiday of the year.

If the schools really are charities they will presumably make sure anyone genuinely in financial distress will be taken care of, no? Maybe they could do some fundraising like state schools are forced to do to pay for exercise books and pens.

Imagine the terror if they have to either walk that what was it again 5 miles or so to be within the catchment area? or cycle that gigantic distance?

 

[BoldonLad]

Imagine the horror of parents having to make sacrifices for their kids, being forced to drive a slightly less fashionable car to the school gates or forgoing their third foreign holiday of the year.

If the schools really are charities they will presumably make sure anyone genuinely in financial distress will be taken care of, no? Maybe they could do some fundraising like state schools are forced to do to pay for exercise books and pens.

Not sure what your experience of private schools is but:

Is a 7 year old Mitsubishi hybrid and no foreign holidays less flashy enough, and, a big enough sacrifice?, and, pupil cycles to school.

Maybe they do fundraising?

 

[icowden]

Imagine the horror of parents having to make sacrifices for their kids, being forced to drive a slightly less fashionable car to the school gates or forgoing their third foreign holiday of the year.

Growing up we didn't have a car for most of my childhood and we went on holiday to Wales every other year or so. Even now we go on one foreign holiday per year and my car is a company car - and I am in a *much* better financial position than my parents were.

 

[newfhouse]

I know two families with children at local private schools. They struggle to do so, and certainly do not have multi foreign holidays a year, but they have bought into the belief that it will give their kids a better education and better prospects for the future, and were prepared to make some sacrifices.

I think it will be unnecessarily punitive to those kids and their families to kick their legs from underneath them at this stage of their, already started, education. The kids are not at fault, and I am not sure I can blame parents for wanting the best for their kids. Many parents in the state school system use their wealth to benefit their kids e.g. getting tutors, better access to books/IT etc., moving house to be in a better school's catchment area.

I'm well aware that many private school parents believe they are struggling to pay for fees and everything else that's needed to avoid having their children appear to be the relatively impoverished ones. That's why I suggested that the schools themselves could use some of their own money to lessen the effect of any change. With state schools literally crumbling and struggling to recruit and retain teachers I don't believe that using tax to continue to offer a subsidy to the parents of already privileged kids is fair.

It would be a huge change to many schools which cannot be implemented overnight.

If they haven't seen the writing on the wall for years then they're not very good at financial planning.