h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

We can only have "every school aspire to the standards of private schools" if they have equivalent funding and facilities. How would we go about raising state schools to those levels? It would take substantial increases in investment in state education, which would require tax increases, which people who try to make that kind of argument generally oppose. This kind of 'it's up to the public sector to improve' argument doesn't make sense if followed by the caveat 'but I'm not prepared to pay for it'.

Make every school independent. Give every parent a say in their child's education by giving them a voucher equivalent to what the state would have spent on their child and let them choose the school where they spend it. Failing schools won't attract pupils and hence funding, but schools that concentrate successfully on educating children will have no problems.

Right.... so then we effectively get independent schools charging the state fee, and those charging top-ups fees.... and we end up back where we started in terms of disparity of resources, or more likely in an even worse situation. Or is the suggestion that no school *at all* is allowed to charge extra?

SWL, you asked what would need to happen to make society equal, not perfect. The society we had in the 1970's was fairer and more equitable, not better. How we make better, fairer and more equitable seems to be beyond everyone at the moment.

Plus ca change.

Hmm.

I feel insufficiently experienced to make a proper comment on this one. It's something that's been going around the discussions and around my head for as long as I can remember internet arguments.

But a couple of small bits I feel confident about:

The lumpenproletariat/underclass who can't be bothered to work thing is tricky. It's partially-true, but also self-perpetuating. I have good qualifications such that I ought to be able to find work in more or less any situation, but I have found it hard not so long ago and being on the dole without work is demoralising enough to push someone into a routine of laziness.

I also think that social position/status/whatever is more than economics. How do we account for the wealthy nerd who never learns to socialize?

And on top of those, the world is changing, probably faster than politics can keep up. I think that independent work, contracting and small companies are becoming much more viable, particularly in my sector. In fact, large companies are often too wieldly to be competitive and only get any business at all because of tradition and inertia.

"Tax rates were lowered in the US in the 1920's and again under Kennedy before Reagan did it again. Every time, tax revenue rose. Further, the tax burden was actually borne more by the rich than the poor after the cuts. http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/wm327.cfm" There are a couple of curious things about this. First of all, that research is a little selective about what data it shows. For example, it mentions the tax cuts of the 20s, 60s and 80s and that revenue rose. But it doesn't mention the period between 1930 and 1960 when the tax rate rose. The tax revenue increased from (according to their data) "$1164 million in 1928" to "$94 billion in 1961" that's an 80-fold increase over 33 years or a 14.2% annual rate of increase. By contrast, they quote "Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent." That's a 7% annual rate of increase. And "Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent". That's also a 7% annual rate of increase. The 99% increase they state for the 80s also corresponds to a 7% rate. I'm not an economist, so maybe this calculations are faulty. Still though, the way they present the data is about the same level of simplicity as the way I have, and we've reached dramatically opposite conclusions... The other thing is that tax cutting governments also tend to make other changes that make the rich more well off than the poor. So you would expect to see that, as they quote, during periods of tax cutting the rich end up paying a larger proportion of the total tax revenue, just because they're getting richer faster. So although the poor are paying less tax in the sense of what proportion of the total tax bill they're paying, that probably doesn't make them feel much better about the fact that most of the benefits of economic growth are going to the rich rather than to them. "Why can't we turn that one around and have every school aspire to the standards of private schools?" I'd definitely favour this approach, the English education system is terrible. Better to make private schools irrelevant than to ban them. "Tax people as they earn, tax what's left when they spend it, tax it if they save it then tax it again if they don't manage to spend it all before they die." You're taxing the unearned income of the people inheriting the money rather than the (already taxed) income of the person who earned it (who is dead and therefore isn't being taxed). "Make every school independent. Give every parent a say in their child's education by giving them a voucher equivalent to what the state would have spent on their child and let them choose the school where they spend it. Failing schools won't attract pupils and hence funding, but schools that concentrate successfully on educating children will have no problems." This suggests that the problem with state schools is only that they're badly run. That may well be true, but they're also much less well funded. The average funding per pupil in state schools is �5000 a year compared to �8000 a year at private schools (and Eton, which you mentioned, costs �28000 a year). The average state primary school has 16 pupils per teacher compared to 9 at the average private school. These things matter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/4833780.stm

Education is something I care a lot about, and a sector where I volunteer, so therefore actually know something.

I would close all selective schools including faith schools, which would raise standards by putting a lot of ambitious pupils into the ordinary schools.

The reason grammer and faith schools do better is not just superior funding, it is parent involvement. When you're paying for your child's education - you care about it and have expectations. If you can't afford to pay yourself, then you suddenly find God for 3 months until your child is accepted by a school that has external funding through a religous organisation. It's still a parental commitment though.

The other issue of class sizes is again significant schools are paid by the number of pupils, the number of pupils determines the head-teacher's salary, so that encourages large, unweildy comprehensives. More smaller schools is the way to improve the educational experience. This gives netter pupil/teacher relationships and enables all the children to be known to the staff.

Unfortunately it requires a provision for those who won't learn, and I (reluctantly) have come to the opinion that state run boarding schools are the only option for some of these children.

One thing about funding of education is the huge sums spent on Local Education Authorities and quangos such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Further Education Funding Council. I'd suggest taking the entire state education budget and dividing it amongst the number of pupils for each voucher. That would target all of the current education spending directly upon the child and increase the actual resources per child. It's impossible to track all the hidden budgets of the multiple quangos and levels of bureaucracy within the state education system, but I can't see any reason why we couldn't at least get that £5000 per child closer to the £8000 you quote by doing this.

The point about tax rates is to draw attention to the fact that increasing taxation sometimes has an opposite effect to that intended and there are other ways to go. I think you may be missing the point that lowering taxation means the poorest pay no tax so inevitably the tax burden is borne by the rich.

McKay - the size of the class isn't the be-all and end-all, it's down to the quality of the teacher too. A good teacher can handle larger class sizes.

You're right about the parental involvement though and that's why the voucher scheme would work. On the face of it, it would lead to schools being driven to attract more pupils but because parents have choice, they would have to be providing a good service as well.

Why is it we accept that government is inefficient at running industries but we think it's ok for them to run education? Political meddling in the education system has been a disaster for kids and it's time for local communities to take control back from gadfly education ministers.

I agree about the quality of teaching, but I was thinking more of the size of the educational establishment.

Schools with over 2,000 pupils mean that a vast swathe remain faceless, staff just can't know all those pupils. Limit each year's intake to 150 and it becomes more manageable.

<>


Private schools are a way of ensuring middle class parents have kids who become middle class themselves. By paying for a better education people give their kids better opportunities in life, or rather exacerbate the differences already present. Like McKay says, the positive influence of parents who care about their kids' education would be another positive effect.

I don't really have a hard on about it(?), but it is a factor in inequality in society. Which is the topic of the thread, after all.


<> Another socialist cause celebre. Tax people as they earn, tax what's left when they spend it, tax it if they save it then tax it again if they don't manage to spend it all before they die.

A way of rich folk passing on wealth which is UNEARNED BY THEIR KIDS. Rather relevant on a discussion on inequality.


<< <> Over one million of the workforce of twenty three million >>

So less than 5%. Thanks for providing the stats.

<< <> The labour govt have done a pretty good job of attacking this sector, despite it providing one of the best ways for young mothers to keep their skills current and to help them back into the workforce once the maternity period is over. >>

I'm an 'ongoing' temp for a bank just now. I don't suppose I meant temps in the sense of companies who need workers for brief periods, just the proliferation of badly paid, unsecure agency jobs that a lot of companies have to keep costs down. I do the same job as people 50 yards away who get paid more, better holidays, pensions etc etc. If unions were stronger, this kind of thing wouldn't happen, or not nearly so much.

>>A way of rich folk passing on wealth which is UNEARNED BY THEIR KIDS<<

True enough,but it has already *been earned* (and therefore taxed at least twice - once before take home, and more than likely, taxed when it was saved)

The fact that it has already been earned surely gives the earner to do what the hell they want to do with their cash?

And most parents tend to put a bit of a nest egg by so that their kids can at least aspire to have a better quality life than they've had.

Or am I just poor *and* altruistic?

Out of interest, what's the definition of "rich" in this discussion?

...gives the the earner the right to do what the hell....

I'm still saving up for a new pair of specs

Evadne, I think the threshold on inheritance tax rose from £300k to £600k last year or something. So that would mean on a £1m estate now you'd pay £160 tax (it's 40% iirc). I would imagine most people with this kinda dough would have bought property which has skyrocketed in value in the last 20 years, even allowing for recent falls. Which isn't taxed, and isn't really earned either. As for what's rich, erm, anyone who pays inheritance tax?

If it was zero, that would would be much fairer.

It would also go against, as you say, the urge for parents to provide for their kids. It would tackle inequality, but I suppose there's always a price to pay.

If it was zero, that would would be much fairer. >>

Should read; If the threshhold on inheritance tax was zero, it would make for a fairer society.

etc.

Thanks for that, Pedro

I think I'm getting Inheritance Tax mixed up with Death Duties, somwhow., but that's a different thing.

I can see what you're saying about the threshold on inheritence tax being zero being fairer within society...but... well; take my case.

I live in rented accomodation.(no property)

I have one of those insurance policies that pay out for my funeral.

(I've calculated it as best I can to cover the least expensive sort with around £300 in "real terms" left over so that my sons can throw a bit of a wake/party for them and whoever arrives to see me off when I do peg out. That, to me is a form of courtesy.

And we'll go for worst case scenario, so assume that I *still have an overdraft (minus amounts of cash to leave)

Let us also assume that by the time I peg out, owning and driving a vehicle wasn't a sensible option.
(no "big" expensive wordly goods to pass on- apart from, possibly, a PC and a mobile phone. And I get *them in sales!)

Would this new fairer government accept 2nd hand furniture, clothing, and personal belongings in lieu of cash for the inheritence tax you suggested?

Or would my lads get a Rebate on my demise?

Hi Evadne,

Zero probably would make for the fairest outcomes, but as you've pointed out it gets a bit silly for relatively trivial amounts and personal items (Imagine how ghoulish it would be having the in *govt* picking through your belongings..).

Still, allowing for that kinda thing you could always say about 10 grand or so.

SWL, "I can't see any reason why we couldn't at least get that £5000 per child closer to the £8000 you quote by doing this."

Is that just wishful thinking though? I mean, it's easy to say that there'll be such and such efficiency gains by doing things through the market - but not really any solid evidence that it works. It certainly hasn't worked with privatised industries, PFI and PPP schemes in general.

Actually, I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea of having a much more decentralised education system with more local control, but I'm wary of making a change that will, even if well-intentioned, lead in practice to even greater inequality. I think vouchers would do this if introduced in the current climate.

Thing is, talking about 'vouchers' is talking the language of retail, but education isn't like retail. If my imaginary supermarket, Ottosco, offers the best products at the best prices on the high street, I can just order more stock and employ more staff. As long as I can keep the shelves stacked and the tills manned, I can keep expanding. Schools aren't like that, not least because the average customer is not physically inside the supermarket, using its facilities, from 9:00-3:30 for 5 days a week, 39 weeks a year. A 'popular' school just can't increase capacity in the same way as a 'popular' supermarket. And then you end up having to come up with a system to decide who gets in.

I'd also dispute the extent to which private education actually benefits society as a whole. Presumably it's turning out young adults with better qualifications and perhaps greater abilities than a state school education would allow them, but does that really do anything more than give these people an unfair advantage over their rivals at age 16/18? I'm not sure it does. Is a doctor or lawyer or engineer better at their job because of their secondary school? I really doubt it, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.

One of the things that HEFCE does is, er, distribute money to universities based on student numbers and agreed funding formulas. This sounds straightforward, but isn't, and there have been major errors in recent years, especially at London Metropolitan University. HEFCE also plays a coordinating role, including sharing good practice and ideas amongst institutions.

Interesting piece here, http://socialistresistance.org/?p=594 although it does tend to contradict itself and dissolve into the usual language of hate and class division.