Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
pidsy said:
It’s going to cause the closure of a pretty high number of small schools, preps especially. Those with relatively small pupil numbers.
It’s going to cost us as a school - approx £5m per year extra.
Over 40% of our students are on some kind of fee assistance- their parents will find it very difficult to keep up.
We project that losing 5% of pupils through inability to pay will cause financial issues across all departments. Budgets for next academic year are already being mooted as 20% less than this year.
We will have to lay off support staff and life will be tougher all round.
This is exactly what I've been discussing with two governors of two small (ish) prep schools who say precisely what you're saying.It’s going to cost us as a school - approx £5m per year extra.
Over 40% of our students are on some kind of fee assistance- their parents will find it very difficult to keep up.
We project that losing 5% of pupils through inability to pay will cause financial issues across all departments. Budgets for next academic year are already being mooted as 20% less than this year.
We will have to lay off support staff and life will be tougher all round.
Any downward swing over about 10% in pupil numbers and the school starts to look unviable... there is talk of closure. This will dump three or four hundred pupils into the local state system, a system that is already full and at a vast cost to tax payers. Repeat this nationally and the policy starts to look reckless.
cheesejunkie said:
turbobloke said:
Those who are paying for private education should not have to subsidise the education of other people's children in the state sector via taxation.
Now it's the 'fair' word...Giving all parents a voucher to the value of their children's education is fair to all. They can then choose to spend it where they like each year, and the state sector can adapt accordingly.
Time to stop pussyfooting with such an important individual and societal outcome.
Two can play that game, those in the state sector should not be asked to fund private education through tax breaks.Now it's the 'fair' word...Giving all parents a voucher to the value of their children's education is fair to all. They can then choose to spend it where they like each year, and the state sector can adapt accordingly.
Time to stop pussyfooting with such an important individual and societal outcome.
I understand your point, we disagree on first principles.
The world isn’t fair, we choose what’s relatively fair and all have opinions, mine is that paying vat on private education isn’t a big deal. Some disagree because they’ll be paying it and don’t want to.
How is the state funding my daughters private education, if i'm the one funding education but getting nothing in return?
Cheesejunkie what you really mean is that those people too lazy to pay for really good education want more free money from those of us already working our arses off paying big chunks of tax. That's ok, that's your opinion. But what happens when all the people like me get thoroughly hacked off with working hard and paying taxes and just stop? or move abroad? because that's what will happen if you keep taking without giving anything in return.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
I've just checked- last year £3,260 of my taxes went on education. When my daughter starts private school I'll still be paying £3,260 to the state, but the state won't be spending any money on educating my children.
How is the state funding my daughters private education, if i'm the one funding education but getting nothing in return?
Cheesejunkie what you really mean is that those people too lazy to pay for really good education want more free money from those of us already working our arses off paying big chunks of tax. That's ok, that's your opinion. But what happens when all the people like me get thoroughly hacked off with working hard and paying taxes and just stop? or move abroad? because that's what will happen if you keep taking without giving anything in return.
It's late so apologies to some for not replying to some but on this point I pay a hell of a lot more than that in taxes every month.How is the state funding my daughters private education, if i'm the one funding education but getting nothing in return?
Cheesejunkie what you really mean is that those people too lazy to pay for really good education want more free money from those of us already working our arses off paying big chunks of tax. That's ok, that's your opinion. But what happens when all the people like me get thoroughly hacked off with working hard and paying taxes and just stop? or move abroad? because that's what will happen if you keep taking without giving anything in return.
The state is funding your private education by providing you the means to do so. You're not covering the full cost.
You're not going to walk, that's big talk, small action.
Plenty work hard, remuneration is not proportional to effort.
Keep taking without giving? Lol. Cry me a f
king river. The threat to take your ball away is just as ineffective now as it was in the playground.How much did the state give Eton last year in cash? None. not a penny.
how is the state providing the means for private education? it doesn't give any money to the private sector.
If you don't think successful self made tax payers will leave the country then you don't know history. in the 70s a material portion of the contributing tax payers relocated to France. Nowadays relocating to a different tax jurisdiction is phenomenally easy.
Clearly you have an opinion that private education is bad- what about private tutors, universities, colleges, dance academies, sports academies? presumably you hate those too? or is it ok in your mind to pay for private tennis lessons if you are a tennis prodigy, but not ok to pay for private lessons if you are a maths genius?
how is the state providing the means for private education? it doesn't give any money to the private sector.
If you don't think successful self made tax payers will leave the country then you don't know history. in the 70s a material portion of the contributing tax payers relocated to France. Nowadays relocating to a different tax jurisdiction is phenomenally easy.
Clearly you have an opinion that private education is bad- what about private tutors, universities, colleges, dance academies, sports academies? presumably you hate those too? or is it ok in your mind to pay for private tennis lessons if you are a tennis prodigy, but not ok to pay for private lessons if you are a maths genius?
cheesejunkie said:
The state is funding your private education by providing you the means to do so. You're not covering the full cost.
I assume by that you are suggesting that the "full cost" includes VAT?If so that is some of the most warped economic/fiscal logic I've ever read! It's also completely inaccurate.
Your mathematical gymnastics hold no basis in reality
The state is giving nothing, its just not taking away, in the same way it doesn't for that long list if other things posted above.
Meanwhile it is being alleviated of the cost of educating the children concerned which would cost a far greater amount than the VAT on their existing private school fees would raise. The state is better off having these kids in private schools, by some margin.
Your assumption is clearly that all kids in the private sector would stay there (raising lots of tax) and is baseless and wrong. Your blasé statement that the VAT on school fees would be "no big deal" is also wholly inaccurate.
As many directly involved with it have indicated above. It will likely break the system at huge cost to the state and to the education of large numbers directly and indirectly affected. You still haven't said or justified how much of that you think is acceptable.
Conclusion: You simply do not know or understand what you are talking about.
Edited by Wombat3 on Monday 22 April 09:05
) about education. Private schools are a luxury afforded by an elite. They can not be regarded as an essential because the state provides education through taxation. They can not be regarded as charities because they are run for profit.
They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
dimots said:
Private schools are a luxury afforded by an elite. They can not be regarded as an essential because the state provides education through taxation. They can not be regarded as charities because they are run for profit.
They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
Around 70% of indedpendent schools have charitable status. Their typical budget, according to Oxford Economics in 2022, involves spending 71% of fee income on staffing costs, 26% on non-staff costs including items from buildings and grounds to energy and community works, with 3% surplus (not profit) re-invested in the main aim of maintaining a high quality of education provision.They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
Those with established charitable status are taxed as they should be. You're right on one thing, it's not that difficult.
In essence and with no fancy wrapping, harming or scrapping high standards of education in favour of lower standards (Boggo LA Comp motto: No Worse Than Any Other Boggo LA Comp) makes no sense.
dimots said:
Private schools are a luxury afforded by an elite. They can not be regarded as an essential because the state provides education through taxation. They can not be regarded as charities because they are run for profit.
They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
Quite impressive, wrong at almost every level.They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
turbobloke said:
Around 70% of indedpendent schools have charitable status. Their typical budget, according to Oxford Economics in 2022, involves spending 71% of fee income on staffing costs, 26% on non-staff costs including items from buildings and grounds to energy and community works, with 3% surplus (not profit) re-invested in the main aim of maintaining a high quality of education provision.
Those with established charitable status are taxed as they should be. You're right on one thing, it's not that difficult.
In essence and with no fancy wrapping, harming or scrapping high standards of education in favour of lower standards (Boggo LA Comp motto: No Worse Than Any Other Boggo LA Comp) makes no sense.
Good luck selling to the vast majority of the uk population who don’t use private schools.Those with established charitable status are taxed as they should be. You're right on one thing, it's not that difficult.
In essence and with no fancy wrapping, harming or scrapping high standards of education in favour of lower standards (Boggo LA Comp motto: No Worse Than Any Other Boggo LA Comp) makes no sense.
dimots said:
turbobloke said:
Around 70% of indedpendent schools have charitable status. Their typical budget, according to Oxford Economics in 2022, involves spending 71% of fee income on staffing costs, 26% on non-staff costs including items from buildings and grounds to energy and community works, with 3% surplus (not profit) re-invested in the main aim of maintaining a high quality of education provision.
Those with established charitable status are taxed as they should be. You're right on one thing, it's not that difficult.
In essence and with no fancy wrapping, harming or scrapping high standards of education in favour of lower standards (Boggo LA Comp motto: No Worse Than Any Other Boggo LA Comp) makes no sense.
Good luck selling to the vast majority of the uk population who don’t use private schools.Those with established charitable status are taxed as they should be. You're right on one thing, it's not that difficult.
In essence and with no fancy wrapping, harming or scrapping high standards of education in favour of lower standards (Boggo LA Comp motto: No Worse Than Any Other Boggo LA Comp) makes no sense.
Education benefits society whether you consume it directly or not which is why all tax payers pay for it not just parents. The benefit is an educated society. If some are educated at additional cost society still gets that benefit.
You like many just seem to hate something you can't have so want to make it harder. Why not apply VAT to all training courses to university fees too. Why not infact like in Singapore make every parent pay a fee for children's education after all if you don't have kids it's unfair right.
Selll idea....or present the truth. Kids moving into the state sector will mean less tax and more pressure so in the end it will hurt everyone and benefit no one beyond some feeling of hitting the rich. It's crazy but so be it.
dimots said:
Private schools are a luxury afforded by an elite. They can not be regarded as an essential because the state provides education through taxation. They can not be regarded as charities because they are run for profit.
They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
if they are making a profit, then they are not a charity and are taxed on the profit. Rejoice, that means they are taxed as a luxury and your goals are already met so you can relax. It is not that difficult.They are currently not taxed as they should be. State schools have space, birth rate is falling, net migration to the UK is falling.
Tax them as luxuries. Spend it on state education.
It's not that difficult?
Of course, if they are not making any profit, then that kind of eliminates your whole hypotheses doesn't it?
dimots said:
The facts aren’t wrong, charitable status for these schools is a loophole that needs to be closed.
Only if they don't meet charitable status that is make a profit....course as you have been told 70% don't.Also sample of one here but my kids school has vast sports facilities. These are not used 100% of time. So the children from the nearby state school come and use the pool, netball courts and astro pitches. I feel this is an excellent use of the facilities (free of charge I might add) as all children should be able to play sports and its nice for kids to experience nice facilities their school may not have (you can't build astro hockey pitch etc if you don't have the space).
I would suspect this may cease to be free to use which would mean it simply won't be used as state schools like private schools don't have huge budget surplus despite what people think.
But I am sure your hatred of the "elite" will allow you to accept kids going without
Gecko1978 said:
Only if they don't meet charitable status that is make a profit....course as you have been told 70% don't.
Also sample of one here but my kids school has vast sports facilities. These are not used 100% of time. So the children from the nearby state school come and use the pool, netball courts and astro pitches. I feel this is an excellent use of the facilities (free of charge I might add) as all children should be able to play sports and its nice for kids to experience nice facilities their school may not have (you can't build astro hockey pitch etc if you don't have the space).
I would suspect this may cease to be free to use which would mean it simply won't be used as state schools like private schools don't have huge budget surplus despite what people think.
But I am sure your hatred of the "elite" will allow you to accept kids going without
No hatred, just logic. If I build myself a swimming pool in my back garden and let my friend's kids swim in it, I don't ask for a tax break.Also sample of one here but my kids school has vast sports facilities. These are not used 100% of time. So the children from the nearby state school come and use the pool, netball courts and astro pitches. I feel this is an excellent use of the facilities (free of charge I might add) as all children should be able to play sports and its nice for kids to experience nice facilities their school may not have (you can't build astro hockey pitch etc if you don't have the space).
I would suspect this may cease to be free to use which would mean it simply won't be used as state schools like private schools don't have huge budget surplus despite what people think.
But I am sure your hatred of the "elite" will allow you to accept kids going without
Great article here, very reasonable.
https://philanthropydaily.com/tax-breaks-for-priva...
dimots said:
Gecko1978 said:
Only if they don't meet charitable status that is make a profit....course as you have been told 70% don't.
Also sample of one here but my kids school has vast sports facilities. These are not used 100% of time. So the children from the nearby state school come and use the pool, netball courts and astro pitches. I feel this is an excellent use of the facilities (free of charge I might add) as all children should be able to play sports and its nice for kids to experience nice facilities their school may not have (you can't build astro hockey pitch etc if you don't have the space).
I would suspect this may cease to be free to use which would mean it simply won't be used as state schools like private schools don't have huge budget surplus despite what people think.
But I am sure your hatred of the "elite" will allow you to accept kids going without
No hatred, just logic. If I build myself a swimming pool in my back garden and let my friend's kids swim in it, I don't ask for a tax break.Also sample of one here but my kids school has vast sports facilities. These are not used 100% of time. So the children from the nearby state school come and use the pool, netball courts and astro pitches. I feel this is an excellent use of the facilities (free of charge I might add) as all children should be able to play sports and its nice for kids to experience nice facilities their school may not have (you can't build astro hockey pitch etc if you don't have the space).
I would suspect this may cease to be free to use which would mean it simply won't be used as state schools like private schools don't have huge budget surplus despite what people think.
But I am sure your hatred of the "elite" will allow you to accept kids going without
Great article here, very reasonable.
https://philanthropydaily.com/tax-breaks-for-priva...
As to your friends kids using the pool is the council asked you to pay extra 20% council tax good chance you would close the pool and my example is akin to you letting local scout group use it for free not your neighbours
As someone who was taught in private schools and has taught in state schools, there is a massive difference.
In private schools, the norm is well-controlled classes taught at a high level with zero uncontrolled classes. The worst students in the worst classes behave like middle-set kids from a state school. In contrast, state schools have a wild mix of classes. Each year group might have an elite class, a few semi-decent classes and a few classes filled with recalcitrant morons.
The elite comprehensive class would be almost as good as the top set class of a private school, but ultimately private schools will perform better as the kids tend to be surrounded by smarter kids.
The other factor is the type of networking opportunities. Kids going to private school are more likely to mix with kids whose parents are from high flying/professional jobs.
If you have the money, it's well worth paying the premium.
In private schools, the norm is well-controlled classes taught at a high level with zero uncontrolled classes. The worst students in the worst classes behave like middle-set kids from a state school. In contrast, state schools have a wild mix of classes. Each year group might have an elite class, a few semi-decent classes and a few classes filled with recalcitrant morons.
The elite comprehensive class would be almost as good as the top set class of a private school, but ultimately private schools will perform better as the kids tend to be surrounded by smarter kids.
The other factor is the type of networking opportunities. Kids going to private school are more likely to mix with kids whose parents are from high flying/professional jobs.
If you have the money, it's well worth paying the premium.
Sensei Rob said:
As someone who was taught in private schools and has taught in state schools, there is a massive difference.
In private schools, the norm is well-controlled classes taught at a high level with zero uncontrolled classes. The worst students in the worst classes behave like middle-set kids from a state school. In contrast, state schools have a wild mix of classes. Each year group might have an elite class, a few semi-decent classes and a few classes filled with recalcitrant morons.
The elite comprehensive class would be almost as good as the top set class of a private school, but ultimately private schools will perform better as the kids tend to be surrounded by smarter kids.
The other factor is the type of networking opportunities. Kids going to private school are more likely to mix with kids whose parents are from high flying/professional jobs.
If you have the money, it's well worth paying the premium.
That's fine, do you think this inequalty of opportunity should be partly funded by the taxpayer?In private schools, the norm is well-controlled classes taught at a high level with zero uncontrolled classes. The worst students in the worst classes behave like middle-set kids from a state school. In contrast, state schools have a wild mix of classes. Each year group might have an elite class, a few semi-decent classes and a few classes filled with recalcitrant morons.
The elite comprehensive class would be almost as good as the top set class of a private school, but ultimately private schools will perform better as the kids tend to be surrounded by smarter kids.
The other factor is the type of networking opportunities. Kids going to private school are more likely to mix with kids whose parents are from high flying/professional jobs.
If you have the money, it's well worth paying the premium.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff