Private schools, times a changing?

[NDA]

TownIdiot said:

we will continue to see tinkering at the edges.

Unfortunately this 'tinkering' will cause many small private schools to close. Once pupil numbers are down by 10% or so, many become economically unviable - I know two governors at different prep schools who say that it's going to be difficult to survive.

Apart from the fact that some excellent schools will be forced to close and cause massive disruption to the lives of the pupils and parents, dumping 300 pupils at a time on the state systems won't work. It's also going to be a massive cost to taxpayers - in fact the policy is looking to be revenue neutral.

But for the mouth-breathers it's 'hitting the toffs' - so a vote winner.

[Wombat3]

TownIdiot said:

Your position seems to be - it won't work as the very richest will work round it.
Which is an issue with many taxes.

Not easy to solve.

However in general I agree with your point - I'd like to see massively increased investment in education a long with a radical overhaul of the state system.

Can't see it happening though so we will continue to see tinkering at the edges.

The very richest will just pay it and not bat an eyelid. There will be fewer private schools and they will be more elitist. There will be disruption to the education of kids in both sectors as schools close. The smaller ones have very little ability to withstand more than single digit percentage reductions in numbers before they become non viable,. Bursaries and access to facilities are also likely to be reduced or withdrawn, why would they not be?

There's a lot of bks talked about private education & the lack of VAT being couched as some kind of tax break or subsidy...

...and it's mostly by people who I very much doubt have ever had any direct interaction with or any first hand knowledge about the schools themselves or the people that use them ( Let alone understanding the meaning of the word "subsidy")

Maybe spend more time & energy looking at your own situation and less worrying about what other people are doing...its generally much more productive,.

[DonkeyApple]

TownIdiot said:

Your position seems to be - it won't work as the very richest will work round it.
Which is an issue with many taxes.

Not easy to solve.

However in general I agree with your point - I'd like to see massively increased investment in education a long with a radical overhaul of the state system.

Can't see it happening though so we will continue to see tinkering at the edges.

It's a criminal shame given that the vast majority of children in the U.K. are guided into adulthood and the taxation system by the state schools and these are very clearly not delivering a sufficient number of educated people into the work place or enough taxpayers to keep the country properly funded. We should be arriving to get as many children as possible into the private system to create as many taxpayers as possible from the widest social background as possible. The system needs more poorer parents partaking not fewer. Elitism is a truly terrible thing for a society.

Meanwhile, the state system needs to stop pandering to those who are statistically never likely to be tax contributors to the detriment of those that clearly will. Just like society needs to stop pandering to incompetent and negligent parents to the detriment of those grafting to make a better life for their children regardless of what level they are starting out from.

Raising education costs and favouring the dysfunctional to the detriment of the functional is social vandalism and the destruction of social mobility while the creator of elitism.

Education across the entire spectrum must be as cheap and as efficient as possible. Taxing it and absolving those who disrupt it cannot ever be morally justified.

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

...and it's mostly by people who I very much doubt have ever had any direct interaction with or any first hand knowledge about the schools themselves or the people that use them ( Let alone understanding the meaning of the word "subsidy")

,.

In fairness i don't think many will have. I wouldn't know where the nearest private school is or even met anyone, knowingly, that's been to private school.

[Baroque attacks]

Wombat3 said:

The very richest will just pay it and not bat an eyelid. There will be fewer private schools and they will be more elitist.

It removes the ‘fuzzy middle’ of families who went without but could find a way to pay. There will inevitably be some who can’t stretch to the extra.

An odd policy as those who can pay anyway, still pay, those who are too poor, are still too poor.

There will also be fewer bursaries as a consequence, those which remain will likely be much more targeted.

[M1AGM]

Reeves was banging the 6500 extra teachers drum, paid for by vat on school fees.

So are there 6500 empty classrooms? And 6500 people waiting to be teachers?

She didnt say how recruiting 6500 teachers would improve anything for kids in the state system.

The last time I looked state schools are generally overcrowded and in dire need of investment (apart from those funded by PFI because we are already paying heavily over value for those, thanks tony) and there is a shortage of people wanting to be teachers across the private and public sector.

[borcy]

DonkeyApple said:

TownIdiot said:

Your position seems to be - it won't work as the very richest will work round it.
Which is an issue with many taxes.

Not easy to solve.

However in general I agree with your point - I'd like to see massively increased investment in education a long with a radical overhaul of the state system.

Can't see it happening though so we will continue to see tinkering at the edges.

It's a criminal shame given that the vast majority of children in the U.K. are guided into adulthood and the taxation system by the state schools and these are very clearly not delivering a sufficient number of educated people into the work place or enough taxpayers to keep the country properly funded. We should be arriving to get as many children as possible into the private system to create as many taxpayers as possible from the widest social background as possible. The system needs more poorer parents partaking not fewer. Elitism is a truly terrible thing for a society.

Meanwhile, the state system needs to stop pandering to those who are statistically never likely to be tax contributors to the detriment of those that clearly will. Just like society needs to stop pandering to incompetent and negligent parents to the detriment of those grafting to make a better life for their children regardless of what level they are starting out from.

Raising education costs and favouring the dysfunctional to the detriment of the functional is social vandalism and the destruction of social mobility while the creator of elitism.

Education across the entire spectrum must be as cheap and as efficient as possible. Taxing it and absolving those who disrupt it cannot ever be morally justified.

Genuine question, how/where does the state sector pander to non tax payers?

[Wombat3]

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

...and it's mostly by people who I very much doubt have ever had any direct interaction with or any first hand knowledge about the schools themselves or the people that use them ( Let alone understanding the meaning of the word "subsidy")

,.

In fairness i don't think many will have. I wouldn't know where the nearest private school is or even met anyone, knowingly, that's been to private school.

Meanwhile many seem to feel qualified to say that "they'll just pay it, it won't make any difference " .

Its painfully obvious they haven't a fking clue (whilst also being utterly unable to join the dots on what the consequences might be. )

Dogma /dog-whistle politics is bks politics. (But that's the left for you.)

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

...and it's mostly by people who I very much doubt have ever had any direct interaction with or any first hand knowledge about the schools themselves or the people that use them ( Let alone understanding the meaning of the word "subsidy")

,.

In fairness i don't think many will have. I wouldn't know where the nearest private school is or even met anyone, knowingly, that's been to private school.

Meanwhile many seem to feel qualified to say that "they'll just pay it, it won't make any difference " .

Its painfully obvious they haven't a fking clue (whilst also being utterly unable to join the dots on what the consequences might be. )

Dogma /dog-whistle politics is bks politics. (But that's the left for you.)

I'd say it's just the internet, plenty talk, and hold strong opinions, about areas they've no first hand information on.

[TownIdiot]

For what it's worth I put two kids through private school, the youngest leaving 3 years ago.

[CLK-GTR]

Notreallymeeither said:

How will the parents of previous private school children improve the state school system?

Genuine question. Would you do it by evicting a current governor and then getting elected as a replacement for that governor, and then converting all the other governors to get rid of the head and all the failing teachers?

How long will that all take? I would have thought it would be circa 3 year project before you start to see results?

And why are private school parents considered so fantastic at turning around state schools? Is there a special “How To” book that gets issued to private school parents for use in emergencies?

What I suspect in reality is that the ex private parents aren’t suddenly going to be able to do something miraculous that the parents who are currently there have been trying to do for some time but have not been able to do due to general inertia / lack of funds etc.

Some will say “they will have more funds because all that money from the VAT will be injected in and will save the state schools”. I think it is highly unlikely all the VAT money will make it to the relevant schools. And remember, there will be more demand in those schools and higher class sizes etc.

I just don’t see how it is all going to work.

Isn't it more that having kids with parents who give a damn will push the overall achievement levels up?

The expected VAT raised will be about 3k per child per year. The cost to the state to educate a child is apparently 8k. It won't take many kids defecting to the state system before the whole thing badly backfires.

[Wombat3]

TownIdiot said:

For what it's worth I put two kids through private school, the youngest leaving 3 years ago.

Likewise, (though I stopped paying fees nearly 10 years ago)

So unless the schools you used were in the very top echelon (Eton etc) you would know that there are a wide cross-section of people who use them & that they are not all "minted" by any means.

The impacts of this stupidity are already being felt (as the fellow described last week where his kids school has already elected to close) because people are now making decisions about not even starting the journey (or indeed stopping it part way through). So applications are down and withdrawals are up already.

[kiethton]

TownIdiot said:

okgo said:

Kent has around 40 grammar schools. The most in any county in England and getting on for a third of the total number. Over half of said schools nationally are in the South East.

My point was simply that I wouldn’t just ‘accept’ the local school, and I’m sure many other parents wouldn’t either. Depending on age of children.

And my point is that moving house to avoid 20% on school fees probably doesn't add up financially.

Pretty sure it does, especially when you have more than one child at the beginning of their education.

A like for like house in Sevenoaks would cost about the same as mine in CR2, the train to the city is within 5 minutes of the same time. £4k a year extra per child for 14 years - £56k a child...

Most families have 2 kids, make that £112k.

SDLT for moving for a lfl house to my own is c£45k.

Then you factor in that the relative house price performance is likely to be better in Sevenoaks over the next 5 years as everybody tries to do the same...

Soon making the move is looking like the financially prudent option

[okgo]

Wombat3 said:

Likewise, (though I stopped paying fees nearly 10 years ago)

So unless the schools you used were in the very top echelon (Eton etc) you would know that there are a wide cross-section of people who use them & that they are not all "minted" by any means.

The impacts of this stupidity are already being felt (as the fellow described last week where his kids school has already elected to close) because people are now making decisions about not even starting the journey (or indeed stopping it part way through). So applications are down and withdrawals are up already.

The top echelon I'd hazard a guess put more kids through on bursary than any other. So even they do have a useful role to play for people beyond 'the rich'.

[TownIdiot]

kiethton said:

Pretty sure it does, especially when you have more than one child at the beginning of their education.

A like for like house in Sevenoaks would cost about the same as mine in CR2, the train to the city is within 5 minutes of the same time. £4k a year extra per child for 14 years - £56k a child...

Most families have 2 kids, make that £112k.

SDLT for moving for a lfl house to my own is c£45k.

Then you factor in that the relative house price performance is likely to be better in Sevenoaks over the next 5 years as everybody tries to do the same...

Soon making the move is looking like the financially prudent option

If you don't put the 2 kids through private school at all you will save the best part of 500k

That's half your house paid for

[kiethton]

TownIdiot said:

kiethton said:

Pretty sure it does, especially when you have more than one child at the beginning of their education.

A like for like house in Sevenoaks would cost about the same as mine in CR2, the train to the city is within 5 minutes of the same time. £4k a year extra per child for 14 years - £56k a child...

Most families have 2 kids, make that £112k.

SDLT for moving for a lfl house to my own is c£45k.

Then you factor in that the relative house price performance is likely to be better in Sevenoaks over the next 5 years as everybody tries to do the same...

Soon making the move is looking like the financially prudent option

If you don't put the 2 kids through private school at all you will save the best part of 500k

That's half your house paid for

Yet their outcomes will, on balance, be far, far worse unless we moved to a nicer area.

Would you send your kids to state school in Croydon? The risk of them falling in with the wrong crowd and failing academically is so much higher.

[Baroque attacks]

TownIdiot said:

If you don't put the 2 kids through private school at all you will save the best part of 500k

That's half your house paid for

I know you said you stopped paying fees a while ago, but this just sounds like a returning poster talking who hasn’t had children.

[DonkeyApple]

For many the deal is relatively simple. Modest house, modest car, in modest area with poor state schools but the free income to pay fees. Or nicer house, nicer cars in a nicer area where the state schools can be used and no fees.

What you have already and clearly been seeing as more middle income families have been priced out of rising fees over the last decade is the use of the purchasing power they do have to ensure they're living in the nice areas with the nice state schools. Ergo, pricing out the less well off and leaving them with no choice but their children at worse state schools.

The best state schools when run on catchment criteria tend to already price out the less affluent and changes such as increasing private costs randomly by 20% will just exacerbate that over time.

It really is silly to be allowing higher educational costs let alone the madness of actually forcing it.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

So why should private education be VAT exempt?

Charitable status which basically means they might open the doors of the swimming pool or theatre to the local comp during the holidays.

Private education should be provided for the Asian elite who want a traditional British education. And private schools need to pivot in that direction.

To manage the transition VAT should be added to new starters only from 2025, existing students remain VaT exempt.

The benefits of having the children of motivated and affluent parents in state schools are multiple.

Dilution of problem kids, role models for all kids to aspire to, rich kids working alongside those from poorer backgrounds with lower aspirations, a merging of beliefs, an increasing in understanding, (no more Bullingdon club!) but the most important advantage , is that the advantages that private education are narrowed which means that there’s no fast track hot housing to get into Oxford Uni, you’ll be measured against those without that background and the old school tie network becomes redundant.

I’ll make the following point-

Who has made more of their life? The Eton educated rich kid, with connections and opportunities to die for who gets a 2:1 at Oxford, or the sink estate educated child from a disruptive and chaotic background that somehow ended up with a degree from Gloucester uni.

That’s what this is about, equality of opportunity .

[ClaphamGT3]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

So why should private education be VAT exempt?

Charitable status which basically means they might open the doors of the swimming pool or theatre to the local comp during the holidays.

Private education should be provided for the Asian elite who want a traditional British education. And private schools need to pivot in that direction.

To manage the transition VAT should be added to new starters only from 2025, existing students remain VaT exempt.

The benefits of having the children of motivated and affluent parents in state schools are multiple.

Dilution of problem kids, role models for all kids to aspire to, rich kids working alongside those from poorer backgrounds with lower aspirations, a merging of beliefs, an increasing in understanding, (no more Bullingdon club!) but the most important advantage , is that the advantages that private education are narrowed which means that there’s no fast track hot housing to get into Oxford Uni, you’ll be measured against those without that background and the old school tie network becomes redundant.

I’ll make the following point-

Who has made more of their life? The Eton educated rich kid, with connections and opportunities to die for who gets a 2:1 at Oxford, or the sink estate educated child from a disruptive and chaotic background that somehow ended up with a degree from Gloucester uni.

That’s what this is about, equality of opportunity .

All education is VAT exempt. Adding it to independent school fees would be an additional surcharge tax.

Your benefits show a significant naivety as to what placing children who would otherwise attend independent schools into the state sector would achieve. You get more division, not less and more displacement of disadvantaged/less able kids into 'sink' schools.

As to your final point, that is just a lazy and uninformed stereotype