Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B1211 - Education Reform Bill Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Low-income backgrounds has not been defined making that clause in the bill a waste of writing. And it is unfair to expect wealthy parents to pay for the education of strangers, who may not appreciate education, and the education of their children. In the system as it is, parents have the choice of paying more for the child's education, forcing wealthier parents to pay for education when poorer parents do not, is makes the system a de facto tax on wealthy parents which is against the Libertarian Party claims of wanting lower taxes.
    Look at the spreadsheet regarding low-income, the finer elements are in there.

    Currently the education system is poorly funded and run, the 14bn+ saved could be used to reduce taxes/increase spending on the NHS, reduce the deficit etc. It all leads to the lowering of taxes in other areas.

    I understand that we don't want the wealthy paying for the poorer children, but to reduce the social class divide and increasing the quality of education massively for all, it is a necessity. The likelihood is though, many of the rich will stay at the currently private schools
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    Correct - the current system needs to be rolled back. End the failed experiment of businesses involved in education and let Local Government do something it was good at.
    You accept that the current system needs to be rolled back and this bill achieves what you wish to do, albeit through different methods.

    You call it a 'failed experiment', yet what we propose will allow schools to have greater funds and businesses to have to perform, or essentially be sacked by the government who retain control over the education system.

    You may not agree with all the details of this plan but would this not be an improvement on the current situation?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    They'll be there for the money, not the education of the children


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But how would they be in there for the money? To gain the school, they need a comprehensive plan, and they must run it efficiently as the plan dictates. They must make money, of course they have to, but they will not make more money by cutting certain areas here and certain areas there, there is a fixed sum of £250 per pupil in tax relief
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    You accept that the current system needs to be rolled back and this bill achieves what you wish to do, albeit through different methods.

    You call it a 'failed experiment', yet what we propose will allow schools to have greater funds and businesses to have to perform, or essentially be sacked by the government who retain control over the education system.

    You may not agree with all the details of this plan but would this not be an improvement on the current situation?
    No I think it would make the current situation worse, and to be brutally honest - Teachers would not tolerate such measures.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The definition of section 1(4) is contradictory to the definition in section 1(6) because public schools are the same as private schools; the one type of school cannot have two conflicting definitions. I support the purpose of the bill but the implementation of the idea is terrible; private primary schools should not be forced to sit tests, the barriers for entry to selective schools are not stated, and the cost of education is going to be affordable for poorer parents.



    Low-income backgrounds has not been defined making that clause in the bill a waste of writing. And it is unfair to expect wealthy parents to pay for the education of strangers, who may not appreciate education, and the education of their children. In the system as it is, parents have the choice of paying more for the child's education, forcing wealthier parents to pay for education when poorer parents do not, is makes the system a de facto tax on wealthy parents which is against the Libertarian Party claims of wanting lower taxes.
    1(4) is about the newly reformed schools, 1(6) is about currently private schools
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    So let's say a person gets taxed £x per year, and under this system they get awarded a voucher amount of £y. What you're saying is that, rather than the tax money being given to a school by the government, it is actually 'refunded' to the parent, according to means, who will then give it to the school?

    It seems that this is putting more of the costs onto the shoulders of the rich, since they'll have to pay 50% of the cost of their own child going to school, plus subsiding whatever goes back to poorer families (since less well-off families either don't pay tax or pay a smaller amount). At least, that's how I understand it? Seems odd for a Liber bill, increasing the cost for wealth-creators
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    For the pupils who attend state schools you are right, they are paying later for the education they received when young. This bill would be better if school fees were treated like university tuition fees in the days of free tuition, where the independent schools participating in the scheme have a limit on the highest fees that can be charged with government paying a subsidy to the parents to cover the cost of school fees.
    There are limits on the price that schools can give and they are outlined in the spreadsheet. Each region, as outlined, will have a new average target (instead of having a national limit) and - as was not explained - the limit each school can charge will vary, depending on how the needs of that school are defined. This could be done best by local government, taking into account the plans the organisation running their respective schools outlines.

    This should have been explained, I apolagize. Would this change your mind on the bill?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    and the cost of education is going to be affordable for poorer parents.


    .
    Did you mean that? In which case, yes, it will be affordable
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Count Bezukhov)
    So let's say a person gets taxed £x per year, and under this system they get awarded a voucher amount of £y. What you're saying is that, rather than the tax money being given to a school by the government, it is actually 'refunded' to the parent, according to means, who will then give it to the school?

    It seems that this is putting more of the costs onto the shoulders of the rich, since they'll have to pay 50% of the cost of their own child going to school, plus subsiding whatever goes back to poorer families (since less well-off families either don't pay tax or pay a smaller amount). At least, that's how I understand it? Seems odd for a Liber bill, increasing the cost for wealth-creators
    Please see the response before regarding this issue, I think it was in response to Nigel
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Why is the state subsidising business in this way?! Buy giving people a school instead of them paying for it and them then setting fees however they like so they can extract as much money from the state as possible. This is a truely horrible idea and I deplore the libertarian party for suggesting it.

    Education should be in the hands of the state not given over to just anyone. And if you are going to inspect schools to make sure they follow standards then keep them in the states control. This is just a hairbrained idea from the libertarian party to give their rich friends even more money out of the pocket of hard working ordinary people and it must be stopped!!!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    No I think it would make the current situation worse, and to be brutally honest - Teachers would not tolerate such measures.
    I don't see how changing the system to ensure schools have more money per student would be either intolerable or worse.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I can only agree with the arguments made by my Right Honourale Friend Afcwimbledon2 MP.

    Nay
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Abstain

    Whilst I support the voucher based system I think you guys implamented the wrong way. You haven't made it clear what the income brackets are; you need make it clear if you earn below a certain amount you get subsidised 100% of the cost and if your earn above certain income you get partial subsidies. I would also like public funded schools to remain instead of having them abolished; so they can compete with private schools to improve qualtiy of eduction, it also gives families more choice. Those who want to go to public funded school can and those who want to go to a private school can with a voucher, which subsidises the full cost. This allows lower income families to send their kids to school to wherever they like and still be able to afford to go there. I'm also against privaitsation of primary schools and would rather have them remain state controlled, I favour partial privatisation of secondary schools.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Why is the state subsidising business in this way?! Buy giving people a school instead of them paying for it and them then setting fees however they like so they can extract as much money from the state as possible. This is a truely horrible idea and I deplore the libertarian party for suggesting it.

    Education should be in the hands of the state not given over to just anyone. And if you are going to inspect schools to make sure they follow standards then keep them in the states control. This is just a hairbrained idea from the libertarian party to give their rich friends even more money out of the pocket of hard working ordinary people and it must be stopped!!!
    To your first point, refer to the comment I sent to the right honourable Nigel Farage MEP:

    'There are limits on the price that schools can give and they are outlined in the spreadsheet. Each region, as outlined, will have a new average target (instead of having a national limit) and - as was not explained - the limit each school can charge will vary, depending on how the needs of that school are defined. This could be done best by local government, taking into account the plans the organisation running their respective schools outlines.'

    Secondly, I cannot change your mind if you believe this is some right-wing plot to put money from the poor into the hands of the rich (whilst it will in fact achieve the direct opposite in allowing the working class a greater advantage.) The claim that we wish to put education out of the state's control is ludicrous. To the contrary, it is the state that will ensure these plans are fiscally responsible and that standards are increased by making sure that the individuals running schools have a good plan, whilst still allowing them extra power to do what is needed as long as it improves standards.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    You accept that the current system needs to be rolled back and this bill achieves what you wish to do, albeit through different methods.

    You call it a 'failed experiment', yet what we propose will allow schools to have greater funds and businesses to have to perform, or essentially be sacked by the government who retain control over the education system.

    You may not agree with all the details of this plan but would this not be an improvement on the current situation?
    When the government is going to have control over the standards the new independent schools need to meet, the teachers employed, the tests sat, and the fees, the schools are not independent schools but academies as we have today. The beauty of independent schools is the lack of government influence over them, introducing that government influence will lower the quality of independent schools.

    (Original post by That'sGreat)
    1(4) is about the newly reformed schools, 1(6) is about currently private schools
    Section 1(4) covers existing private schools choosing to join this system, there is no section for state schools wanting to be purchased by private individuals or organisations.

    (Original post by Saunders16)
    There are limits on the price that schools can give and they are outlined in the spreadsheet. Each region, as outlined, will have a new average target (instead of having a national limit) and - as was not explained - the limit each school can charge will vary, depending on how the needs of that school are defined. This could be done best by local government, taking into account the plans the organisation running their respective schools outlines.

    This should have been explained, I apolagize. Would this change your mind on the bill?
    The spreadsheet is not law because it is not contained in the bill, and setting regional limits on fees is a unworkable system removing the independence from independent schools.

    (Original post by That'sGreat)
    Did you mean that? In which case, yes, it will be affordable
    I meant unaffordable because low-incomes background has not been defined in the bill.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Why is the state subsidising business in this way?! Buy giving people a school instead of them paying for it and them then setting fees however they like so they can extract as much money from the state as possible. This is a truely horrible idea and I deplore the libertarian party for suggesting it.

    Education should be in the hands of the state not given over to just anyone. And if you are going to inspect schools to make sure they follow standards then keep them in the states control. This is just a hairbrained idea from the libertarian party to give their rich friends even more money out of the pocket of hard working ordinary people and it must be stopped!!!
    If the private organisations are going to do a better job at running a school than the state is, there is no justification for giving pupils a second-rate education for philosophical reasons.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mr T 999)
    Abstain

    Whilst I support the voucher based system I think you guys implamented the wrong way. You haven't made it clear what the income brackets are; you need make it clear if you earn below a certain amount you get subsidised 100% of the cost and if your earn above certain income you get partial subsidies. I would also like public funded schools to remain instead of having them abolished; so they can compete with private schools to improve qualtiy of eduction, it also gives families more choice. Those who want to go to public funded school can and those who want to go to a private school can with a voucher, which subsidises the full cost. This allows lower income families to send their kids to school to wherever they like and still be able to afford to go there. I'm also against privaitsation of primary schools and would rather have them remian state controlled, I favour partial privatisation of secondary schools.
    Firstly, the spreadsheet outlines what the income brackets are. This should have been more clear in the bill, admittedly.

    The essence of the privatisation stated in this bill is that it is the best possible way of creating choice for parents by allowing schools to stand out from each other more. To exist and for the organisations running schools to stay in place, they must be successful in providing desirable choices and increasing standards. It is the state and specifically local government (which will be explained in an improved bill) that can do this best. This also, I hope, answers your question regarding primary schools. There will not be a place for those who wish to misuse money, allow low standards and fail children in the name of business - they, if lucky enough to pass requirements, will soon be out of control of their schools.

    Households that earn less than £30k do not have to pay for their first child; households that earn less than £40k have to pay 5% of the annual school fees for their first child (further children are free); households that earn less than £50k have to pay 10% of the annual school fees for their first child. By all accounts, lower income families are not significantly worse off, and the tax cuts that the money saved by such a voucher system will more than offset the costs.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saunders16)
    To your first point, refer to the comment I sent to the right honourable Nigel Farage MEP:

    'There are limits on the price that schools can give and they are outlined in the spreadsheet. Each region, as outlined, will have a new average target (instead of having a national limit) and - as was not explained - the limit each school can charge will vary, depending on how the needs of that school are defined. This could be done best by local government, taking into account the plans the organisation running their respective schools outlines.'

    Secondly, I cannot change your mind if you believe this is some right-wing plot to put money from the poor into the hands of the rich (whilst it will in fact achieve the direct opposite in allowing the working class a greater advantage.) The claim that we wish to put education out of the state's control is ludicrous. To the contrary, it is the state that will ensure these plans are fiscally responsible and that standards are increased by making sure that the individuals running schools have a good plan, whilst still allowing them extra power to do what is needed as long as it improves standards.
    IF the state has oversight then the state should control it. Basically what you are proposing is the system we have now but with individuals who have no education background able to run a school.
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    If the private organisations are going to do a better job at running a school than the state is, there is no justification for giving pupils a second-rate education for philosophical reasons.
    That is a big if.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Does the South West really have the lowest current funding per pupil? Wow. Does that mean I'm dumb af

    I can't vote but I support this, I was going to complain you hadn't specified what amount certain incomes would need to pay but you have the spreadsheet of course. My one quail would be to ensure that standards are rigorously maintained to and that children aren't being taught poorly at the expensive of money-making.

    However I do belive there might be certain circumstances where the state may need to manage a school - e.g. in very rural areas with poor transportation costs, as it's unlikely any private venture will fund them.

    Also not so certain about maximum of 5 per individual. If that individual runs 5 all within a certain mile radius they have thus generated a monopoly. So alternatively either make the maximum 1 or I guess add rules for distance between schools.

    But yea, good.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    we will be taking the feedback and rewriting the bill, so it is clearer and more detailed. We hope you agree the underlying concept though
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 2, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.