Brighton and Hove Schools - Budget Cuts

[Dave the OAP]

50+ age group = check
Full pension. =. No I have a standard workplace one and a couple of defined benefit ones converted to private.
Property equity - yes, but that is all relative and only comes to fruition if you sell, but you need to live somewhere.
Grammar school - no..but at 50+ did an OU degree. 2.1 in classics.

Both my kids went to state schools and came out ok.

I sing in lancing college choir and if you want to see private education in full flow lancing is something else and you cannot over estimate the advantage it gives you in life.

 

[Murray 17]

Hangleton Primary - £100k down for 2017/18
Benfield Primary - £48k down for 2017/18
Hove Park - not sure of the figures, but a letter going out warning parents of the cuts to come.

These are fundamental cuts to our children's educations. This isn't messing around cutting a bit of excess spending, this is actual front line teaching at stake, core subject areas.

Brighton and Hove actually have too many Primary School places right now. They can, and probably should start to reduce a class intact from one or two schools, BUT the ridiculous policy decisions of the government is that they have provided more money to set up FREE SCHOOLS. It is madness. We don't need any new schools, there is an excess of places, but you could get a grant to set up a new school tomorrow – in spite of current schools desperately needing additional funding.

It is truly ridiculous, both at central government level, and to some degree the long term planning (or lack of) at our local government level.

Just when so many of B&H schools have worked so hard to get their standards up and attainment levels so high, the rug is being pulled well and truly out from under them.

There are plenty of places at one of those schools you mention, which is why children get sent there when they don't get any of their choices, or move to Hove mid-year. Would be a better idea to reduce that school and enlarge the schools that are oversubscribed.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I am not sure this statement was made with anywhere near the malice you have attached, but never mind.

What I really struggle to understand, is that 50 years ago, only a tiny percentage of the population needed to go into higher education, so a selective system made sense. In the modern world we need EVERYONE to be qualified, even those focussing on traditional vocational careers. Grammar schools make less sense than free schools and they are at best a social experiment.

Funnily enough, in Russia, which is supposedly an equal society, selection in schools is standard. Pupils are educated in general studies during the morning, but in the afternoon are tutored in their talents ie, engineering, art, science, dance, different sports etc. There are as many numerous specialist schools as there are skills.

 

[seagullhoop]

50+ age group = check
Full pension. =. No I have a standard workplace one and a couple of defined benefit ones converted to private.
Property equity - yes, but that is all relative and only comes to fruition if you sell, but you need to live somewhere.
Grammar school - no..but at 50+ did an OU degree. 2.1 in classics.

Both my kids went to state schools and came out ok.

I sing in lancing college choir and if you want to see private education in full flow lancing is something else and you cannot over estimate the advantage it gives you in life.

At £7k (or more) a term from year 8.

Lancing College (and a significant proportion of the fee paying school sector) is a charity as well - seems a bit questionable to say the least when state schools are chronically underfunded.

 

[Bold Seagull]

There are plenty of places at one of those schools you mention, which is why children get sent there when they don't get any of their choices, or move to Hove mid-year. Would be a better idea to reduce that school and enlarge the schools that are oversubscribed.

Schools only have a finite capacity and space. St Andrews for example resisted their expansion, but that happened anyway.

You are right, joined up thinking would mean you reduce some schools from say 2 to 1 form entry, but you have to enforce that which the local authority haven't done. So a school with a 60 intake has 40, and has to split into 2 classes of 20 instead of 1 class of 30. What should happen is the 30 are given their place and the remaining 10 are allocated elsewhere – that way you are ensuring your funding per class is at a maximum.

The radical approach might be to close a school, and plough all the money into the other schools bringing them up to capacity. HOWEVER, you close a school to do that so that the places are allocated around, but there is nothing to stop a Free School opening in its place the following week, thereby the same issue for places occurs.

Brighton & Hove succumbed to political pressure in throwing extra places about at popular schools which has increased the problem. Had they not expanded St Andrews and others, then those places would be filling the schools not up to capacity. It may well be that going into 2017 there are spare places at many of the Brighton and Hove Primary Schools. Again, lack of long term planning by B&H, undermined by government policy on free schools.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

What's a free school?

 

[cloud]

Lancing College (and a significant proportion of the fee paying school sector) is a charity as well - seems a bit questionable to say the least when state schools are chronically underfunded.

Their charitable status allows them to offer bursaries to families who wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise. It also means they will have to follow Charity Commission regulations, so you would expect better financial probity and sustainability than the schools owned and run by venture capitalists

 

[Chicken Run]

What's a free school?

Do you get free school dinners at Free Schools?

 

[cloud]

What's a free school?

They can be set up by anyone and you don't necessarily need qualified teachers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13266290

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Hangleton Primary - £100k down for 2017/18
Benfield Primary - £48k down for 2017/18
Hove Park - not sure of the figures, but a letter going out warning parents of the cuts to come.

These are fundamental cuts to our children's educations. This isn't messing around cutting a bit of excess spending, this is actual front line teaching at stake, core subject areas.

Brighton and Hove actually have too many Primary School places right now. They can, and probably should start to reduce a class intact from one or two schools, BUT the ridiculous policy decisions of the government is that they have provided more money to set up FREE SCHOOLS. It is madness. We don't need any new schools, there is an excess of places, but you could get a grant to set up a new school tomorrow – in spite of current schools desperately needing additional funding.

It is truly ridiculous, both at central government level, and to some degree the long term planning (or lack of) at our local government level.

Just when so many of B&H schools have worked so hard to get their standards up and attainment levels so high, the rug is being pulled well and truly out from under them.

I agree with most of your post whole heartedly except the bit I've bolded. We DO need a new secondary school in B&H - possibly even two.

 

[Murray 17]

Schools only have a finite capacity and space. St Andrews for example resisted their expansion, but that happened anyway.

St Andrew's is a funny one, as their admission policy has something like 13 categories. I think we were in category 11, so didn't apply.

It's tough to accept when you're sent to a school that you really didn't want. Looking around the playground at the grey tracksuit brigade, and listening to them talking about 'Ex on an Island', and realising you've got another 7 years of this. [emoji20]

 

[highflyer]

Good , there shouldnt be any such tax in the first place.

Why? It's unearnt income that sustains inequality. It only affects the very rich.

I am sure we will not agree, but i am interested why you would think this, assuming you agree that government needs to find resources from somewhere to pay for public services?

 

[Bold Seagull]

St Andrew's is a funny one, as their admission policy has something like 13 categories. I think we were in category 11, so didn't apply.

It's tough to accept when you're sent to a school that you really didn't want. Looking around the playground at the grey tracksuit brigade, and listening to them talking about 'Ex on an Island', and realising you've got another 7 years of this. [emoji20]

It's the kids that matter. Don't judge a school by its parents. Judge it by the exuberance of its work, the colour and art on its walls, the motivation of it's teachers. Benfield for example is an excellent school too easily judged on its past reputation and scruffy appearance. Inside the data demonstrates a strong leadership team and progression for kids of all abilities. The work on the walls is as good as any Primary School you'll see in B&H.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Why? It's unearnt income that sustains inequality. It only affects the very rich.

I am sure we will not agree, but i am interested why you would think this, assuming you agree that government needs to find resources from somewhere to pay for public services?

How is it 'unearnt' ?

 

[highflyer]

How is it 'unearnt' ?

Because it's inherited.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Because it's inherited.

I earn money and give it to my children - they might not have earned it but it was most certainly earned and it's who I wish to have the money I earned.

 

[highflyer]

I earn money and give it to my children - they might not have earned it but it was most certainly earned and it's who I wish to have the money I earned.

Lots of people wish a lot of things. You can leave it to them. They will get most of it.
They get at least the first £325,000 tax free. More if it's in the form of the family home I believe. Or if you also give some to charity.
Seems fair to me.
It probably will affect me personally at some point. but then I've also benefited immensely from the society that we are lucky enough to live in and which is paid for by our taxes.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Lots of people wish a lot of things. You can leave it to them. They will get most of it.
They get at least the first £325,000 tax free. More if it's in the form of the family home I believe. Or if you also give some to charity.
Seems fair to me.
It probably will affect me personally at some point. but then I've also benefited immensely from the society that we are lucky enough to live in and which is paid for by our taxes.

It's an envy tax and a tax against working hard for your family that's all.

 

[highflyer]

It's an envy tax and a tax against working hard for your family that's all.

No. No it's not. That's the Daily Mail talking.

What would you consder to be a fairer way of raising the money required to run our schools, hostitals, roads, army etc?

The vast majority of citizens work hard. Nurses work hard. Care workers work hard. Teachers work hard. The cleaner that comes past my desk when I am working late probably holds down 2 or 3 jobs to help look after her family. Most of them will never be lucky enough to be affected by inheritance tax. But they are hard working, they contribute to society and I think they all deserve a decent education system. To be looked after when sick, or old. A safe and secure environment to bring up their children in.

It's not envy that makes me think inheritance tax is a good thing. I feel lucky that I may be affected by it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

It's an envy tax and a tax against working hard for your family that's all.

It isn't. It is a tax for the benefit you have received in your lifetime for the being part of the economy that has seen a growth in your assets. Owning a house is a privilege enabled generally through the ability to borrow which society enables through economic policy. The growth in value of that property is not something you have controlled or earned, it is a result of the economy and society as a whole. Therefore, sole transfer of that asset through inheritance is taxed because the value added to the asset is directly attributable to the state. You earned and paid off your mortgage through hard work and so you have a tax free benefit to pass on, but you did not earn all of the value added to that asset. That was simply a privilege of ownership that the laws of society enabled you to have.

You cannot gift a house to a member of your family in life without Capital Gains, why would you expect to be able to do so in death?