Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
I was reading today that extra activities at state schools would now be subject to VAT - sports tours, music lessons, school trips etc.
The article went on to publish the latest survey:
95% of private schools will have to increase fees. 70% of those by more than 10%.
78% will have to reduce or stop bursaries and scholarships.
64% will need to reduce partnerships with state schools (sports facilities etc).
71% felt they were at risk of closure within 5 years.
Obviously win win for labour and hitting the toffs where it hurts. Seems they're hurting the tax payer too as well as helping to destroy some extremely good schools.
The article went on to publish the latest survey:
95% of private schools will have to increase fees. 70% of those by more than 10%.
78% will have to reduce or stop bursaries and scholarships.
64% will need to reduce partnerships with state schools (sports facilities etc).
71% felt they were at risk of closure within 5 years.
Obviously win win for labour and hitting the toffs where it hurts. Seems they're hurting the tax payer too as well as helping to destroy some extremely good schools.
okgo said:
You’ve paid the price already in inflated house prices 
It’s oft overlooked but to be in catchment of such places the last few posters mention you can easily have paid a set or two of fees.
Only with a house you can get a 25 year low interest loan to pay for it, at the end of the loan you own it and there is a good chance it appreciates. If you are paying extra you (or your kids) get that money back at some point.It’s oft overlooked but to be in catchment of such places the last few posters mention you can easily have paid a set or two of fees.
School fees are a sunk cost unless you think that your kids will pay you when you're older.
Talksteer said:
okgo said:
You’ve paid the price already in inflated house prices
It’s oft overlooked but to be in catchment of such places the last few posters mention you can easily have paid a set or two of fees.
Only with a house you can get a 25 year low interest loan to pay for it, at the end of the loan you own it and there is a good chance it appreciates. If you are paying extra you (or your kids) get that money back at some point.It’s oft overlooked but to be in catchment of such places the last few posters mention you can easily have paid a set or two of fees.
School fees are a sunk cost unless you think that your kids will pay you when you're older.
Talksteer said:
Only with a house you can get a 25 year low interest loan to pay for it, at the end of the loan you own it and there is a good chance it appreciates. If you are paying extra you (or your kids) get that money back at some point.
Which is brilliant till you discover your kids are still living with you 20 years later because they can't afford to move out 
Talksteer said:
School fees are a sunk cost unless you think that your kids will pay you when you're older.
I'm not even sure where to start with that one. I never kept a P&L account on my kids.Talksteer said:
Only with a house you can get a 25 year low interest loan to pay for it, at the end of the loan you own it and there is a good chance it appreciates. If you are paying extra you (or your kids) get that money back at some point.
School fees are a sunk cost unless you think that your kids will pay you when you're older.
It’s not a sunk cost if you think you’re investing in your kid’s education and increasing their changes in life and don’t expect money back. School fees are a sunk cost unless you think that your kids will pay you when you're older.
It’s like saying holidays are a sunk cost or learning to play music or a language or reading a book is a cost sunk.
I don’t for a moment regret putting my kids through private school, I’m certainly not viewing it as a cost sunk or expecting any kind of financial reward.
Each to their own but I’d far rather spend money on my family than a house, even if it did provide access to a better free school.
NDA said:
I was reading today that extra activities at state schools would now be subject to VAT - sports tours, music lessons, school trips etc.
The article went on to publish the latest survey:
95% of private schools will have to increase fees. 70% of those by more than 10%.
78% will have to reduce or stop bursaries and scholarships.
64% will need to reduce partnerships with state schools (sports facilities etc).
71% felt they were at risk of closure within 5 years.
Obviously win win for labour and hitting the toffs where it hurts. Seems they're hurting the tax payer too as well as helping to destroy some extremely good schools.
No to mention wrecking an international revenue stream to the UK. The whole thing is genius. Maybe the sad individual who thought it up didn't benefit from a private education. Or any education for that matter.The article went on to publish the latest survey:
95% of private schools will have to increase fees. 70% of those by more than 10%.
78% will have to reduce or stop bursaries and scholarships.
64% will need to reduce partnerships with state schools (sports facilities etc).
71% felt they were at risk of closure within 5 years.
Obviously win win for labour and hitting the toffs where it hurts. Seems they're hurting the tax payer too as well as helping to destroy some extremely good schools.
Talksteer said:
okgo said:
You’ve paid the price already in inflated house prices
It’s oft overlooked but to be in catchment of such places the last few posters mention you can easily have paid a set or two of fees.
Only with a house you can get a 25 year low interest loan to pay for it, at the end of the loan you own it and there is a good chance it appreciates. If you are paying extra you (or your kids) get that money back at some point.It’s oft overlooked but to be in catchment of such places the last few posters mention you can easily have paid a set or two of fees.
School fees are a sunk cost unless you think that your kids will pay you when you're older.
Wombat3 said:
Talksteer said:
Only with a house you can get a 25 year low interest loan to pay for it, at the end of the loan you own it and there is a good chance it appreciates. If you are paying extra you (or your kids) get that money back at some point.
Which is brilliant till you discover your kids are still living with you 20 years later because they can't afford to move out Talksteer said:
School fees are a sunk cost unless you think that your kids will pay you when you're older.
I'm not even sure where to start with that one. I never kept a P&L account on my kids.Based on my local area the premium for a house located in an excellent school area is less than 5% vs an equivalent house not in that school catchment area. So on a £500k house that would be £25k or about £1700 extra mortgage per year. Its less than the cost of 1 years private school for two children. In addition to the good school you get to live in a good area.
Ergo I don't think it's remotely reasonable to equate the costs of moving to a good school area vs the cost of private educate they are orders of magnitude difference in cash per year and as stated before barring some incredibly unlikely fall from grace of the school and the local area you get to keep all that wealth in the family.
It depends where you live I expect. Average house price of an area I was (before we picked a different school) considering is probably about £1.6-1.8M and for primary school, there’s certainly a lump attached to the ones that are very close to the two outstanding state primaries.
Probably not two kids worth of private education in London but by living not that far away you’d save a few hundred grand without question.
Probably not two kids worth of private education in London but by living not that far away you’d save a few hundred grand without question.
okgo said:
It depends where you live I expect. Average house price of an area I was (before we picked a different school) considering is probably about £1.6-1.8M and for primary school, there’s certainly a lump attached to the ones that are very close to the two outstanding state primaries.
Probably not two kids worth of private education in London but by living not that far away you’d save a few hundred grand without question.
There is a bit of London distortion in there, private schools don't get that much cheaper outside of London but the houses certainly do.Probably not two kids worth of private education in London but by living not that far away you’d save a few hundred grand without question.
Also from an educational advantage perspective secondary schools are more important than primary schools. All reception children are disruptive so for KS1 it doesn't matter where they go so long as the other kids in the class are toilet trained. It's only when you get to secondary school and the disadvantaged pupils start seeing that 1: School will soon be over and 2: They aren't going to get much out of it that the disruption really starts to happen.
Talksteer said:
There is a bit of London distortion in there, private schools don't get that much cheaper outside of London but the houses certainly do.
Also from an educational advantage perspective secondary schools are more important than primary schools. All reception children are disruptive so for KS1 it doesn't matter where they go so long as the other kids in the class are toilet trained. It's only when you get to secondary school and the disadvantaged pupils start seeing that 1: School will soon be over and 2: They aren't going to get much out of it that the disruption really starts to happen.
That's actually not accurate on a number of levels.Also from an educational advantage perspective secondary schools are more important than primary schools. All reception children are disruptive so for KS1 it doesn't matter where they go so long as the other kids in the class are toilet trained. It's only when you get to secondary school and the disadvantaged pupils start seeing that 1: School will soon be over and 2: They aren't going to get much out of it that the disruption really starts to happen.
1) Smaller class sizes and fewer disruptive children (particularly those with undisclosed/acknowledged learning difficulties) mean that children in independent pre-prep and prep schools are developmentally well ahead by the time they hit senior school age
2) Independent pre-prep/prep school pupils will have gone well beyond the national curriculum into extension subjects by Year 6 whereas this is much less likely to be the case in state primary schools
3) Disruption in KS1 is a major issue in state schools. The above mentioned undiagnosed/unacknowledged learning difficulties are real issues as are lack of English as a first language and lack of home support to learning. Anecdotally illustrating this, I am a Governor at an OFSTED Outstanding state primary in Central London. Pupils experience very high indices of deprivation. KS1 stats are a car crash, by end of KS2 an absolutely inspirational team of teachers have got the cohort to target or better. HT with 40 years experience in primary education is really clear on her mantra "We spend KS1 getting most of our pupils to the educational start-line"
4) If you are in London and you want your child to go to an independent London senior day school, the academic bar is at a height where the overwhelming majority of kids from state primaries simply won't make it. The large majority would be screened out in the pre-testing and the few that get through to sit the actual exams will be at a massive disadvantage compared to those from the independent sector who have been preparing for their whole school life. Yes, of course, you'll get a few super bright kids who will get through and a few more who will make it with the help of parental support and tutoring but they are the exception not the rule.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Talksteer said:
There is a bit of London distortion in there, private schools don't get that much cheaper outside of London but the houses certainly do.
Also from an educational advantage perspective secondary schools are more important than primary schools. All reception children are disruptive so for KS1 it doesn't matter where they go so long as the other kids in the class are toilet trained. It's only when you get to secondary school and the disadvantaged pupils start seeing that 1: School will soon be over and 2: They aren't going to get much out of it that the disruption really starts to happen.
That's actually not accurate on a number of levels.Also from an educational advantage perspective secondary schools are more important than primary schools. All reception children are disruptive so for KS1 it doesn't matter where they go so long as the other kids in the class are toilet trained. It's only when you get to secondary school and the disadvantaged pupils start seeing that 1: School will soon be over and 2: They aren't going to get much out of it that the disruption really starts to happen.
1) Smaller class sizes and fewer disruptive children (particularly those with undisclosed/acknowledged learning difficulties) mean that children in independent pre-prep and prep schools are developmentally well ahead by the time they hit senior school age
2) Independent pre-prep/prep school pupils will have gone well beyond the national curriculum into extension subjects by Year 6 whereas this is much less likely to be the case in state primary schools
3) Disruption in KS1 is a major issue in state schools. The above mentioned undiagnosed/unacknowledged learning difficulties are real issues as are lack of English as a first language and lack of home support to learning. Anecdotally illustrating this, I am a Governor at an OFSTED Outstanding state primary in Central London. Pupils experience very high indices of deprivation. KS1 stats are a car crash, by end of KS2 an absolutely inspirational team of teachers have got the cohort to target or better. HT with 40 years experience in primary education is really clear on her mantra "We spend KS1 getting most of our pupils to the educational start-line"
4) If you are in London and you want your child to go to an independent London senior day school, the academic bar is at a height where the overwhelming majority of kids from state primaries simply won't make it. The large majority would be screened out in the pre-testing and the few that get through to sit the actual exams will be at a massive disadvantage compared to those from the independent sector who have been preparing for their whole school life. Yes, of course, you'll get a few super bright kids who will get through and a few more who will make it with the help of parental support and tutoring but they are the exception not the rule.
Likewise if you are in the position to send kids to private secondaries some private tuition is likely to be a better investment to get them past any entrance exams.
Louis Balfour said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
okgo said:
Quite.
Though never underestimate how important being able to make friends/be someone people want to spend time with is. You can be as smart as you like but if you are useless with people it can still hinder you.
The ideal is of course being bright and charismatic. But if I had to choose - I’d take the latter.
Indeed.Though never underestimate how important being able to make friends/be someone people want to spend time with is. You can be as smart as you like but if you are useless with people it can still hinder you.
The ideal is of course being bright and charismatic. But if I had to choose - I’d take the latter.
In my day, this was called "being good in a room" and, at school, we spent a lot of time and effort focusing on this.
Unfortunately it didn't qualify him for anything, so eventually he went into estate agency. I asked him what qualified him for that.
His response.
I have a degree in lying convincingly, or as they call it in acting circles, improvisation. I can pretend to be anything I want with confidence.
Plus, I've rented a flat, and understood the paperwork and law relating to lettings better than any agent I've come into contact with.
He's now a Sales Manager with 6 negotiators working for him.
Went to a state school, with a very strong drama and dance department.
NDA said:
I was reading today that extra activities at state schools would now be subject to VAT - sports tours, music lessons, school trips etc.
The article went on to publish the latest survey:
95% of private schools will have to increase fees. 70% of those by more than 10%.
78% will have to reduce or stop bursaries and scholarships.
64% will need to reduce partnerships with state schools (sports facilities etc).
71% felt they were at risk of closure within 5 years.
Obviously win win for labour and hitting the toffs where it hurts. Seems they're hurting the tax payer too as well as helping to destroy some extremely good schools.
Im presenting some options for some of the schools facing financial difficulties.The article went on to publish the latest survey:
95% of private schools will have to increase fees. 70% of those by more than 10%.
78% will have to reduce or stop bursaries and scholarships.
64% will need to reduce partnerships with state schools (sports facilities etc).
71% felt they were at risk of closure within 5 years.
Obviously win win for labour and hitting the toffs where it hurts. Seems they're hurting the tax payer too as well as helping to destroy some extremely good schools.
Sell some playing fields or Freeze pay.
If the terror that i hear many parents speak with when they are contemplating sending their child to state school is real, these schools will carry on just as they have done because those very parents will do anything to keep their kids in that system. Well. Anything but relinquish the holly bobs in Mauritius and St Morritz......
Tom8 said:
No to mention wrecking an international revenue stream to the UK. The whole thing is genius. Maybe the sad individual who thought it up didn't benefit from a private education. Or any education for that matter.
I expect the oppostie - pulling up the ladders is a Labour trait.Talksteer said:
I'm comparing the difference between two state primaries not prep schools, again London is likely a bit of distortion with much smaller catchment areas. If you look at most of the schools near me they actually have pretty similar value add which means that abilities and development of the child is more important than the teaching. If you're even thinking about sending your kid to private school its unlikely that your local school is a sink school with high levels of depravation.
Likewise if you are in the position to send kids to private secondaries some private tuition is likely to be a better investment to get them past any entrance exams.
Yes, the difference in London is stark, and you are right that problems we see here don't tend to exist in the same way out in the sticks, my state school for both primary and secondary were well equipped and class sizes manageable - this is likely why such a huge proportion of the UK private school places are in London - and of course people have more money.Likewise if you are in the position to send kids to private secondaries some private tuition is likely to be a better investment to get them past any entrance exams.
The local state primary to give an idea was teaching two year groups in the same room (35 or so) and had a playground about the size of a tennis court. The school we have chosen has an average class size of 18 right through to GSCE (assume A Level are slightly bigger, maybe not though), and has access to their own woods for forest school, swimming pool, acres of playing fields, a dedicated library, art department etc etc.
It was impossible to compare them. Removing money/social ideals from the equation, you'd be out of your mind to choose the state in my south London example.
Leithen said:
Seeing the debate in mainstream news over the last few weeks.
Let's have a proper Education Voucher system that covers academic, fitness and school meals. Anything else has VAT applied and is a matter of choice. Encourage private schools to open their sports, music and arts facilities to all and provide support for those who can't afford to access them.
Sir Humphrey says:Let's have a proper Education Voucher system that covers academic, fitness and school meals. Anything else has VAT applied and is a matter of choice. Encourage private schools to open their sports, music and arts facilities to all and provide support for those who can't afford to access them.
Very bold minister; in theory this should produce better outcomes as well run schools can expand and parents/children can vote with their vouchers. Potentially if problem children come with more money there could even be a profit motive for schools to come up with innovative solutions to get them better outcomes. As children get older you could potentially have them able to buy individual courses from individual providers. All great in theory.
Issues:
1: Education isn't frictionless commodity. It takes a long time to set up or expand a school and build a reputation, it's also difficult to leave a school once children have enrolled. If bad schools fail they will bring plenty of children down with them. Creative destruction isn't something that can really be part of an essential public service.
2: In lots of places there isn't enough children for there to be choice or options so you could end up with those who can buying education somewhere else and those who can't travel being stuck with a single provider and all the most difficult children. With a captive market you've got the motorway service station equivalent of a school.
3: Unless this voucher is means tested or reduced to zero if you pay for any of the cost of education you have basically subsidised private schools. Furthermore what most of today's state schools would do is add a top up fee to remove as many of the difficult children as possible and you end up with an education system entirely stratified by parent wealth.
I'm sure that there are solutions to the above but you end up adding complexity and pretty soon it's as complex as the situation we have today with as many gaps in it.
The academy chains were meant to add some elements of competition as better schools took over failing ones. However the issue there is that academy schools are substantially more expensive to administer than an LEA school and aren't accountable to parents or the local community.
The idea of education vouchers and choice tick lots of boxes ideologically with a portion of the conservative party, the fact that they've never gone anywhere near it suggests that they can't make it work politically or administratively.
Personally I think the whole choice idea was pretty silly with an essential public service. Where there is currently choice what should happen is places would be allocated so that all the schools resembled the average school population in the LEA. If you want competition and incentives do that on the school side not at the parental choice end.
Talksteer said:
The academy chains were meant to add some elements of competition as better schools took over failing ones. However the issue there is that academy schools are substantially more expensive to administer than an LEA school and aren't accountable to parents or the local community.
How accountable are LEA schools, really?Talksteer said:
The academy chains were meant to add some elements of competition as better schools took over failing ones. However the issue there is that academy schools are substantially more expensive to administer than an LEA school and aren't accountable to parents or the local community.
Academies and Free Schools are accountable to communities, not least as their communities were involved in setting them up and remain involved in various ways including governance. In addition they're directly accountable to Ofsted and Regional School Commissioners (RSC) tasked with approving new schools and intervening when existing schools underperform. This doesn't look like a deficiency in accountability.There are valid points at the link below on how conclusions being drawn from recent research on relative costsa are fundamentally flawed.
https://schoolsweek.co.uk/why-new-research-on-the-...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff