Private schools, times a changing?

[popegregory]

youngsyr said:

Has anyone seen any research on the ratio of state and privately educated individuals in the leading positions in our country?

From my own experience in the City, it seems to me that a private school education is a pre-requisite for high level posts in investment banks and many professional firms.

Ditto for politics.

And I suspect that is what people are really paying for private education for. After all, you can't teach intelligence.

Yes, the Sutton trust did a lot of work into this and it’s as skewed as you think (although I can’t recall numbers off the top of my head).

[youngsyr]

akirk said:

cheesejunkie said:

I've addressed that the ability to avoid it based on wealth is a fact of life but defending it is a choice that some are lacking in self awareness of supporting their own privilege on.

Except that you have conveniently ignored the fact that wealth is not the only basis for identifying private school parents - as previously posted, while there will always be some wealthy parents, a large % of private school parents simply do not fall into that category - they run broken down cars / eschew holidays / even compromise on the food they buy to scrape together the money to send their child to a private school - very often because (as above) the state system they have already paid for is failing their child(ren).

Many more are paid for by scholarships / bursaries / grandparents / etc. The % of private school pupils where the parents are wealthy and are fully paying the fees out of taxed income is surprisingly small.

I appreciate that this is not as widely known as it should be - but anyone involved in running schools in that sector will be fully cognisant of the pattern of wealth / lack of wealth - go and talk to a bursar!

cheesejunkie said:

But I'm amused to be called a lefty for suggesting I don't want to pay for someone else's children.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that you are not paying for them - or do you also feel that you are paying for:
- children's clothing with no VAT
- golf club memberships with no VAT
- food with no VAT
you must shoulder a heavy financial load Funnily enough my tax bill doesn't go up with increased golf club memberships or the more carrots that are bought

oh and of course - skipping the fact that those same parents are already taxed and paying their share of the children in state systems...

sure - have your own perspective, makes life more interesting - but at least be accurate

You're going to need facts to back those statements up.

I've seen the fee income schedule of a middling private school and whilst there were many students not paying the full fees, only a handful had a free ride and for the rest the costs were still unaffordable to anyone on even close to an average income, let alone the poorer half of society.

[okgo]

popegregory said:

Yes, the Sutton trust did a lot of work into this and it’s as skewed as you think (although I can’t recall numbers off the top of my head).

My botched quote post on page before I believe is that document.

[cheesejunkie]

okgo said:

said:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d0cd9a7ed915d094666a78d/Elitist_Britain_2019.pdf

How did you manage to post a link that doesn't work without cut and paste?

I'll not lie, I'm starting to feel attacked on this thread and I'm not feeling very amenable to anyone's views as a result but I'll still respect them. That a few definitely don't respect mine amuses me no end and especially when they get indignant of their own being questioned.

Now, private schools, times are not a changing. Some are going to have to pay a little more. Times are not a changing. If any motherfker wants to argue that 20% more is discrimination when others had no chance of ever paying the 80% they won't get my support. If they want to argue that it wrecks some's life plans I might have more sympathy but I'll still question why they think they should be subsidised. Support all education or support none, don't piss on my chips and tell me it's raining, i.e. don't tell me that you're saving me money by getting tax breaks. It may even be true on some edge cases but if so it's an example of how badly run the whole st show is and that people are willing to let it slide if they don't have to deal with it and not an example of why I should pay.

I have not conveniently ignored anything. I don't give a flying fk if some private school parents drive crap cars, I'm not impressed at that sacrifice. They're supportive of an exclusionary system and have crap cars.

There's nothing wrong with looking after your own. There's everything wrong with defending it just because you've sunk money into it. I'm like a stuck record now but when I see almost every recent post on this thread jumping down my neck I don't mind repeating myself.

[okgo]

You don’t need to keep posting.

This thread wasn’t about the topic you’ve made it into anyway.

[NDA]

Many of the 550,000 private school (places) parents will find a 20% increase in fees to be too much. Some have estimated that as many as 165,000 could move to the state system as a result of these unnecessary fee increases and smaller private schools having to close. Particularly those who wouldn't find it economically viable to continue with any fewer pupils.

The state system around me is already creaking at the seams with no more capacity and no new buildings being built.

This sets aside the £1.3bn needed annually to educate another 165,000. Let alone the resistance by many to send their kids to under-performing and already overcrowded schools.

Will VAT be added to universities fees? Or is it just this sector of education that's being targeted by the socialists?

Edited by NDA on Wednesday 20th March 18:20

[akirk]

cheesejunkie said:

How did you manage to post a link that doesn't work without cut and paste?

I'll not lie, I'm starting to feel attacked on this thread and I'm not feeling very amenable to anyone's views as a result but I'll still respect them. That a few definitely don't respect mine amuses me no end and especially when they get indignant of their own being questioned.

Now, private schools, times are not a changing. Some are going to have to pay a little more. Times are not a changing. If any motherfker wants to argue that 20% more is discrimination when others had no chance of ever paying the 80% they won't get my support. If they want to argue that it wrecks some's life plans I might have more sympathy but I'll still question why they think they should be subsidised. Support all education or support none, don't piss on my chips and tell me it's raining, i.e. don't tell me that you're saving me money by getting tax breaks. It may even be true on some edge cases but if so it's an example of how badly run the whole st show is and that people are willing to let it slide if they don't have to deal with it and not an example of why I should pay.

I have not conveniently ignored anything. I don't give a flying fk if some private school parents drive crap cars, I'm not impressed at that sacrifice. They're supportive of an exclusionary system and have crap cars.

There's nothing wrong with looking after your own. There's everything wrong with defending it just because you've sunk money into it. I'm like a stuck record now but when I see almost every recent post on this thread jumping down my neck I don't mind repeating myself.

The majority of replies are not attacking you - and sorry you feel attacked - it is called a discussion or debate
If you want to get your point across and have it taken seriously then it is not inappropriate for others to challenge you where there appear to be inconsistencies in what you say / how you phrase that point...

Private education is not an exclusionary system:
- there are schools who will take any child based on ability - regardless of wealth
- there are schools who will take any child based on suitability (i.e. good match of child and school - the holy grail of education) - regardless of ability or wealth
- there are schools who will exclude unless you fit tight categories (e.g. musical ability) whatever your wealth
- there are children going whose forebears have been educated privately since one was a squire to the local knight in the 1400s
- there are children going who are the first in their family in private education
- they come from wealthy and poor backgrounds
- they come from all social backgrounds
- they have a wide range of needs which those schools can help meet and which are not met in the state system

sure - there are skews in the stats and data because a certain amount is self-selection against social norms, but let's get rid of the outdated notions that it is all little Henrys and Ruperts being dropped off by their nanny - sure that happens but there are huge numbers of other scenarios as well...

So at no point is the system exclusionary.

the VAT impact will also hit private schools such as

St David's College in North Wales:
"The school has developed a unique, truly holistic approach to learning and teaching which is as appropriate and successful for the most able academics as it is for those with complex barriers to learning. At all levels, pupils thrive and exceed expectations."
A school which specialises in teaching all children including many who normally struggle in mainstream education...

or Ambitious College in London - an independent school for autistic children...

or Beech Lodge in Berkshire:
"Beech Lodge is a unique special school offering a transformational education for children with social & emotional difficulties primarily due to developmental trauma and adverse childhood experiences."
A school which specialises in looking after and educating children who have had some of the roughest start to life...

It is not all Eton.

[akirk]

youngsyr said:

akirk said:

cheesejunkie said:

I've addressed that the ability to avoid it based on wealth is a fact of life but defending it is a choice that some are lacking in self awareness of supporting their own privilege on.

Except that you have conveniently ignored the fact that wealth is not the only basis for identifying private school parents - as previously posted, while there will always be some wealthy parents, a large % of private school parents simply do not fall into that category - they run broken down cars / eschew holidays / even compromise on the food they buy to scrape together the money to send their child to a private school - very often because (as above) the state system they have already paid for is failing their child(ren).

Many more are paid for by scholarships / bursaries / grandparents / etc. The % of private school pupils where the parents are wealthy and are fully paying the fees out of taxed income is surprisingly small.

I appreciate that this is not as widely known as it should be - but anyone involved in running schools in that sector will be fully cognisant of the pattern of wealth / lack of wealth - go and talk to a bursar!

cheesejunkie said:

But I'm amused to be called a lefty for suggesting I don't want to pay for someone else's children.

Conveniently ignoring the fact that you are not paying for them - or do you also feel that you are paying for:
- children's clothing with no VAT
- golf club memberships with no VAT
- food with no VAT
you must shoulder a heavy financial load Funnily enough my tax bill doesn't go up with increased golf club memberships or the more carrots that are bought

oh and of course - skipping the fact that those same parents are already taxed and paying their share of the children in state systems...

sure - have your own perspective, makes life more interesting - but at least be accurate

You're going to need facts to back those statements up.

I've seen the fee income schedule of a middling private school and whilst there were many students not paying the full fees, only a handful had a free ride and for the rest the costs were still unaffordable to anyone on even close to an average income, let alone the poorer half of society.

I am really not going to post private information about specific schools or parents
But 30+ years in the education world inc. c. 20 years as a governor across 15 different schools means that I have seen a pretty good cross-sample of what the reality is...

[youngsyr]

akirk said:

I am really not going to post private information about specific schools or parents
But 30+ years in the education world inc. c. 20 years as a governor across 15 different schools means that I have seen a pretty good cross-sample of what the reality is...

I'm not asking you to post specifics, I'm asking for a general overview, just as I gave.

In your experience:

1) What rough percentage of private school students on average are on full bursaries?

2) What rough percentage are on >50% bursaries?

3) On 25-50% bursaries?

4) On <25% bursaries?

5) Are paying full fees?

6) What is the average annual fee (all in, including mandatory costs such as lunches and trips) for non-boarding pupils (you can average it over the entire school career or give by age)?

If you're not willing to give your view on the above, then I'm not sure what you can add to the discusion.

[cheesejunkie]

akirk said:

cheesejunkie said:

How did you manage to post a link that doesn't work without cut and paste?

I'll not lie, I'm starting to feel attacked on this thread and I'm not feeling very amenable to anyone's views as a result but I'll still respect them. That a few definitely don't respect mine amuses me no end and especially when they get indignant of their own being questioned.

Now, private schools, times are not a changing. Some are going to have to pay a little more. Times are not a changing. If any motherfker wants to argue that 20% more is discrimination when others had no chance of ever paying the 80% they won't get my support. If they want to argue that it wrecks some's life plans I might have more sympathy but I'll still question why they think they should be subsidised. Support all education or support none, don't piss on my chips and tell me it's raining, i.e. don't tell me that you're saving me money by getting tax breaks. It may even be true on some edge cases but if so it's an example of how badly run the whole st show is and that people are willing to let it slide if they don't have to deal with it and not an example of why I should pay.

I have not conveniently ignored anything. I don't give a flying fk if some private school parents drive crap cars, I'm not impressed at that sacrifice. They're supportive of an exclusionary system and have crap cars.

There's nothing wrong with looking after your own. There's everything wrong with defending it just because you've sunk money into it. I'm like a stuck record now but when I see almost every recent post on this thread jumping down my neck I don't mind repeating myself.

The majority of replies are not attacking you - and sorry you feel attacked - it is called a discussion or debate
If you want to get your point across and have it taken seriously then it is not inappropriate for others to challenge you where there appear to be inconsistencies in what you say / how you phrase that point...

Private education is not an exclusionary system:
- there are schools who will take any child based on ability - regardless of wealth
- there are schools who will take any child based on suitability (i.e. good match of child and school - the holy grail of education) - regardless of ability or wealth
- there are schools who will exclude unless you fit tight categories (e.g. musical ability) whatever your wealth
- there are children going whose forebears have been educated privately since one was a squire to the local knight in the 1400s
- there are children going who are the first in their family in private education
- they come from wealthy and poor backgrounds
- they come from all social backgrounds
- they have a wide range of needs which those schools can help meet and which are not met in the state system

sure - there are skews in the stats and data because a certain amount is self-selection against social norms, but let's get rid of the outdated notions that it is all little Henrys and Ruperts being dropped off by their nanny - sure that happens but there are huge numbers of other scenarios as well...

So at no point is the system exclusionary.

the VAT impact will also hit private schools such as

St David's College in North Wales:
"The school has developed a unique, truly holistic approach to learning and teaching which is as appropriate and successful for the most able academics as it is for those with complex barriers to learning. At all levels, pupils thrive and exceed expectations."
A school which specialises in teaching all children including many who normally struggle in mainstream education...

or Ambitious College in London - an independent school for autistic children...

or Beech Lodge in Berkshire:
"Beech Lodge is a unique special school offering a transformational education for children with social & emotional difficulties primarily due to developmental trauma and adverse childhood experiences."
A school which specialises in looking after and educating children who have had some of the roughest start to life...

It is not all Eton.

Liked the one about a squire in the 1400s. Hopefully you noticed that my feeling of loneliness is because of how vocally annoyed some get at any suggestion of the school system being unfair. I couldn't give a st about me, I do notice the readiness to circle wagons and jump down my neck.

Tell me what an unnecessary fee increase is? Is that a different one than the necessary ones being inflicted on others? Or is thinking the fees should be placed on other people being selfish?

I can accept that the extra raised funds are unlikely to improve education. I can't accept that not taking them is justified by taking them elsewhere instead. Boards of governors have vested interests, that's ok, they're not impartial observers, that's ok. It's a small subject with a vocal minority who are overly represented and have loud voices.

[akirk]

youngsyr said:

akirk said:

I am really not going to post private information about specific schools or parents
But 30+ years in the education world inc. c. 20 years as a governor across 15 different schools means that I have seen a pretty good cross-sample of what the reality is...

I'm not asking you to post specifics, I'm asking for a general overview, just as I gave.

In your experience:

1) What rough percentage of private school students on average are on full bursaries?

2) What rough percentage are on >50% bursaries?

3) On 25-50% bursaries?

4) On <25% bursaries?

5) Are paying full fees?

6) What is the average annual fee (all in, including mandatory costs such as lunches and trips) for non-boarding pupils (you can average it over the entire school career or give by age)?

If you're not willing to give your view on the above, then I'm not sure what you can add to the discusion.

Demanding and insulting in one post - impressive
No - I am not going to post details - because it is not impossible to work out which schools I have been involved with, so it would not be a professional thing to do.

The reality is unsurprisingly that it will vary from school to school... as an example, Eton publicly post the details here:
https://www.etoncollege.com/admissions/financial-a...
Basic Eton fees are c. £50k p/a

Eton College said:

Thanks to generations of benefactors and supporters we are fortunate to have a well-established endowment, which has allowed us to budget £9.4 million for scholarships and bursaries in the 2022/23 financial year. Bursaries are means-tested awards which are given to help support families who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford some, or all of the school fees. Parents who notify us that they require financial assistance are invited to complete an online bursary application form so that the Bursaries Committee can determine the level of bursary award applicable, if any. Bursaries range from 5% to 100% and are dependent on a family’s financial circumstances. We do not publish guidance on qualifying income levels as each application is assessed on a case by case basis.

An independent company will carry out a home visit to assist in the assessment of family circumstances. All applications are then considered by the Bursaries Committee, chaired by the Bursar.

We support as many applications as possible. In 2021/22, 267 boys received fee reductions; 100 of these boys paid no fees at all. The average award was 71% of the fee.

Other schools probably publish details in their annual reports - anyone with some spare time could of course go through them... I suspect that school details will be listed at e.g. ISC and their reports / accounts will probably be on companies house or the charities commission website fill your boots!

[akirk]

cheesejunkie said:

Tell me what an unnecessary fee increase is? Is that a different one than the necessary ones being inflicted on others? Or is thinking the fees should be placed on other people being selfish?

I can accept that the extra raised funds are unlikely to improve education. I can't accept that not taking them is justified by taking them elsewhere instead. Boards of governors have vested interests, that's ok, they're not impartial observers, that's ok. It's a small subject with a vocal minority who are overly represented and have loud voices.

I think you might be referring to someone else's post not mine...

but presumably the thought is that the step being suggested by Labour is un-necessary?!
- It wont' raise money for the public purse (it is likely to end up with a nett cost to the public purse)
- It won't stop the perceived injustice of rich people sending their kids to school with other children of rich people - in fact (as posted above) it is most likely to impact those who are at private schools from non-wealthy backgrounds
- it is likely to impact a number of children for whom private education picks up where the state system fails (c.f. the examples above for dyslexic / autistic / traumatised children)

on what basis will it succeed?
on what basis is it even necessary?

I would be interested to see the success metrics the labour party have calculated - because everyone who knows the education system and doesn't have a political agenda has a calculator which is different to theirs!

[okgo]

youngsyr said:

I'm not asking you to post specifics, I'm asking for a general overview, just as I gave.

In your experience:

1) What rough percentage of private school students on average are on full bursaries?

2) What rough percentage are on >50% bursaries?

3) On 25-50% bursaries?

4) On <25% bursaries?

5) Are paying full fees?

6) What is the average annual fee (all in, including mandatory costs such as lunches and trips) for non-boarding pupils (you can average it over the entire school career or give by age)?

If you're not willing to give your view on the above, then I'm not sure what you can add to the discusion.

Dulwich College publish all this if you’re interested.

Circa 10% pay zero from memory.

[youngsyr]

akirk said:

youngsyr said:

akirk said:

I am really not going to post private information about specific schools or parents
But 30+ years in the education world inc. c. 20 years as a governor across 15 different schools means that I have seen a pretty good cross-sample of what the reality is...

I'm not asking you to post specifics, I'm asking for a general overview, just as I gave.

In your experience:

1) What rough percentage of private school students on average are on full bursaries?

2) What rough percentage are on >50% bursaries?

3) On 25-50% bursaries?

4) On <25% bursaries?

5) Are paying full fees?

6) What is the average annual fee (all in, including mandatory costs such as lunches and trips) for non-boarding pupils (you can average it over the entire school career or give by age)?

If you're not willing to give your view on the above, then I'm not sure what you can add to the discusion.

Demanding and insulting in one post - impressive
No - I am not going to post details - because it is not impossible to work out which schools I have been involved with, so it would not be a professional thing to do.

The reality is unsurprisingly that it will vary from school to school... as an example, Eton publicly post the details here:
https://www.etoncollege.com/admissions/financial-a...
Basic Eton fees are c. £50k p/a

Eton College said:

Thanks to generations of benefactors and supporters we are fortunate to have a well-established endowment, which has allowed us to budget £9.4 million for scholarships and bursaries in the 2022/23 financial year. Bursaries are means-tested awards which are given to help support families who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford some, or all of the school fees. Parents who notify us that they require financial assistance are invited to complete an online bursary application form so that the Bursaries Committee can determine the level of bursary award applicable, if any. Bursaries range from 5% to 100% and are dependent on a family’s financial circumstances. We do not publish guidance on qualifying income levels as each application is assessed on a case by case basis.

An independent company will carry out a home visit to assist in the assessment of family circumstances. All applications are then considered by the Bursaries Committee, chaired by the Bursar.

We support as many applications as possible. In 2021/22, 267 boys received fee reductions; 100 of these boys paid no fees at all. The average award was 71% of the fee.

Other schools probably publish details in their annual reports - anyone with some spare time could of course go through them... I suspect that school details will be listed at e.g. ISC and their reports / accounts will probably be on companies house or the charities commission website fill your boots!

You refuse to give specifics on schools (which I never asked for) and then proceed to give specifics on schools despite me asking for your overview, that you claim to have vast experience to support.

And you wonder why I come across as "rude" in my replies!

I know I can look up individual schools, but you claim to have a long and varied experience in the matter, so I asked for your view. Are you going to give it, or not?

And if not, why bother discussing it at all?

[youngsyr]

okgo said:

youngsyr said:

I'm not asking you to post specifics, I'm asking for a general overview, just as I gave.

In your experience:

1) What rough percentage of private school students on average are on full bursaries?

2) What rough percentage are on >50% bursaries?

3) On 25-50% bursaries?

4) On <25% bursaries?

5) Are paying full fees?

6) What is the average annual fee (all in, including mandatory costs such as lunches and trips) for non-boarding pupils (you can average it over the entire school career or give by age)?

If you're not willing to give your view on the above, then I'm not sure what you can add to the discusion.

Dulwich College publish all this if you’re interested.

Circa 10% pay zero from memory.

That's more than I expected. I would put the number of the school I saw at around 5%.

Probably 50%% had some kind of discount (most quite modest, <25%) and just under half were paying full fees.

Those annaul fees were in the £20k range, excluding lunches, trips etc.

So not really affordable for anyone without a decent income or wealth, especially when you consider multiple kids (although the younger sibling often got a discount).

[cheesejunkie]

akirk said:

I think you might be referring to someone else's post not mine...

but presumably the thought is that the step being suggested by Labour is un-necessary?!
- It wont' raise money for the public purse (it is likely to end up with a nett cost to the public purse)
- It won't stop the perceived injustice of rich people sending their kids to school with other children of rich people - in fact (as posted above) it is most likely to impact those who are at private schools from non-wealthy backgrounds
- it is likely to impact a number of children for whom private education picks up where the state system fails (c.f. the examples above for dyslexic / autistic / traumatised children)

on what basis will it succeed?
on what basis is it even necessary?

I would be interested to see the success metrics the labour party have calculated - because everyone who knows the education system and doesn't have a political agenda has a calculator which is different to theirs!

Yes I’m lazy and guilty of doubling or even trebling up some replies rather than separating. I hope you realise that replying means I like you despite my disagreements and appreciate anyone who replies to me even when I’m too lazy to reply.

On what basis does it have to succeed by your metrics? It doesn’t. I know you’ll never agree but the money raised is irrelevant to the principle of who pays in my view. I’m not out to level down and understand the objections but when they come from people who have no intention of levelling up I start thinking about the horse they rode in on and am prepared to suggest that they use it.

If everyone who knows the education system doesn’t have an agenda I’d be very interested in seeing their working out. Because I suspect everyone has an agenda and arguments about which one has more merit are still agenda driven arguments. Which is fine by the way, as long as they realise that and don’t pretend to be an unemotional altruist.

[youngsyr]

popegregory said:

youngsyr said:

Has anyone seen any research on the ratio of state and privately educated individuals in the leading positions in our country?

From my own experience in the City, it seems to me that a private school education is a pre-requisite for high level posts in investment banks and many professional firms.

Ditto for politics.

And I suspect that is what people are really paying for private education for. After all, you can't teach intelligence.

Yes, the Sutton trust did a lot of work into this and it’s as skewed as you think (although I can’t recall numbers off the top of my head).

I'll try to look it up.

I ask because I've worked with and in City professional firms for over 20 years and the view I get is that a lot of stock is put in a private education.

One good friend is not the brightest (but certainly not stupid) - they have had to resit pretty much every exam they've ever sat, yet they are now a partner in a Big 4 accountancy firm.

I recently came across an investment banker working as a coporate advisor, straight out of Cambridge with a first in maths.

Both obviously privately educated (you can tell by their accent), both not in roles you would expect given their inherent skills, but I suspect their shool tie did a lot to get them the position they have.

All of the maths grad's colleagues that I engaged with (4 or 5) were privately educated. This is not unusual in my experience.

Edit: just thought of a third example: 2:1 graduate in Geology from a Russell Group University, heading up a fund at an investment bank.

[youngsyr]

okgo said:

popegregory said:

Yes, the Sutton trust did a lot of work into this and it’s as skewed as you think (although I can’t recall numbers off the top of my head).

My botched quote post on page before I believe is that document.

It's a little out of date, but quite damning:

Sutton Trust said:

Two fifths of the elite examined here (39%) attended independent schools, more than five times as many as the population
at large (7%).

So if the elite roles were evenly distributed amongst the most intelligent, and assuming attendance at private school is independent of intelligence, you would expect 32% of the roles currently filled by privately educated individuals to be filled by stated educated individuals.

1 in 3!

[akirk]

youngsyr said:

You refuse to give specifics on schools (which I never asked for) and then proceed to give specifics on schools despite me asking for your overview, that you claim to have vast experience to support.

And you wonder why I come across as "rude" in my replies!

I know I can look up individual schools, but you claim to have a long and varied experience in the matter, so I asked for your view. Are you going to give it, or not?

And if not, why bother discussing it at all?

your reply (as with this one) was rude because you are demanding and brusque

... as well as not terribly perceptive Any common sense would see that if I give out figures based on my experience then those figures would clearly come from the schools I have been involved in - they are in the main schools linked to a livery company and I don't intend to make public anything which might suggest specifics for that family of schools - it would be unprofessional having sat in a position of confidence and authority on the governing body of a number of those schools.

I linked you to the Eton figures because I thought that would be helpful - it is published information and nothing to do with any of the schools I have been involved with.

Why discuss it - because there seems to be a certain degree of ignorance out in the world and belief that everyone at private schools is swanning around dripping in money etc. when clearly that is far from the reality for many who attend - people who will be affected by any changes Labour make to the VAT regulations. If the principle to understand is simply to re-calibrate from a belief that all parents of that market sector are wealthy - to a realistic understanding that actually a number are not - then that is sufficient, if you need to know more detail - pootle off and find it have fun!

[akirk]

cheesejunkie said:

akirk said:

I think you might be referring to someone else's post not mine...

but presumably the thought is that the step being suggested by Labour is un-necessary?!
- It wont' raise money for the public purse (it is likely to end up with a nett cost to the public purse)
- It won't stop the perceived injustice of rich people sending their kids to school with other children of rich people - in fact (as posted above) it is most likely to impact those who are at private schools from non-wealthy backgrounds
- it is likely to impact a number of children for whom private education picks up where the state system fails (c.f. the examples above for dyslexic / autistic / traumatised children)

on what basis will it succeed?
on what basis is it even necessary?

I would be interested to see the success metrics the labour party have calculated - because everyone who knows the education system and doesn't have a political agenda has a calculator which is different to theirs!

Yes I’m lazy and guilty of doubling or even trebling up some replies rather than separating. I hope you realise that replying means I like you despite my disagreements and appreciate anyone who replies to me even when I’m too lazy to reply.

On what basis does it have to succeed by your metrics? It doesn’t. I know you’ll never agree but the money raised is irrelevant to the principle of who pays in my view. I’m not out to level down and understand the objections but when they come from people who have no intention of levelling up I start thinking about the horse they rode in on and am prepared to suggest that they use it.

If everyone who knows the education system doesn’t have an agenda I’d be very interested in seeing their working out. Because I suspect everyone has an agenda and arguments about which one has more merit are still agenda driven arguments. Which is fine by the way, as long as they realise that and don’t pretend to be an unemotional altruist.

Oh dear - not sure about cordiality in debate - far harder to handle

I am not sure that I have specific metrics - but I assume that Labour will - and I suspect that it will succeed by their unpublished ones:
- "to attack the establishment and pull down anything that looks successful where those engaged might be wealthy or middle class and above"

on the question of whether it will meet their published metrics of huge financial savings - strongly doubt it...

why? 2 reasons:
- UK parents will move out into the state sector - costing the government all their savings and more
- schools will adapt or die...

on that last one:
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2024...
news from a few days ago:
some quotes:

"Dukes Education, which runs more than 30 schools in Britain and overseas, reportedly bought nine schools in the EU, where VAT is not charged on private school fees, to offset the impact of the tax in the UK."

"Meanwhile Stafford Grammar School, an independent school in Stafford, central England, is now doing something unusual for a day school – recruiting new pupils from overseas, having obtained a licence from the UK Visa and Immigration" (children will lodge with local families as guardians)

"LVS Ascot, a day and boarding school in Berkshire, southern England, is also stepping up its efforts to recruit more pupils from abroad."

so we can see where private education might be going - no vat to those from abroad