Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
JimmyConwayNW said:
I don’t think it even works doing that. If the private school kids are all 6/12/24 months ahead of a state kid then you won’t even get them in particularly if it’s academically selective which nearly all private schools are.
There are private schools that are genuinely selective and difficult to get in to but those are not the majority.JimmyConwayNW said:
I don’t think it even works doing that. If the private school kids are all 6/12/24 months ahead of a state kid then you won’t even get them in particularly if it’s academically selective which nearly all private schools are.
You’re possibly not wrong. We’d assumed we’d need to pay for extra tuition nearer the time to prepare for the entrance exam but didn’t consider that they could be so far behind that they fail it. To be fair, we’re planning on the same school that I went to and I’d guess that about 30% of the senior intake didn’t come from the junior school. Jumping in from the state system isn’t unusual - and it’s a very, very good school, particularly for rugby and other sport. What we’re seeing with the state primary that they’re at - which is actually a pretty good one with a good catchment area - is that once the child reaches the required level they’re as good as forgotten about. There’s no pushing them, no advanced work and no focus on excellence.
If it wasn’t for my wife pushing them at home I really do think they’d be behind their private school contemporaries. Some might say it’s also the parents’ responsibility to educate their child but there’s a limit to what you can teach them to pass their exams without lots of study yourself; I’m genuinely out of my depth now with year 4 English!
Zio Di Roma said:
Loughborough for a start.
When the Govt introduced comprehensive schools and phased out grammars and secondary moderns, a number of grammar schools elected to become fee paying, normally supported via the old direct grant model. When direct grant was phased out, those remaining grammars could choose to become comprehensives under their LEA or become fully independent fee paying schools. Many of them that became independent opted to keep "Grammar" in their name. ClaphamGT3 said:
When the Govt introduced comprehensive schools and phased out grammars and secondary moderns, a number of grammar schools elected to become fee paying, normally supported via the old direct grant model. When direct grant was phased out, those remaining grammars could choose to become comprehensives under their LEA or become fully independent fee paying schools. Many of them that became independent opted to keep "Grammar" in their name.
Thanks for the explanation. So not grammar in the traditional sense. My son's in year 8 at a grammar and my daughter joins the system in September. Having both been at a fee paying preprep. Working well so far.
M1AGM said:
There are private schools that are genuinely selective and difficult to get in to but those are not the majority.
Yep. We looked at I’d say 6-8 schools within a mile or two of us - it’s 50/50 which we’re selective and which just needed your interest/money in time. The most selective, probably Alleyn’s has something like 8-9 people applying per spot I read - nobody I know was offered a spot there!
And this is prime pushy parent London which you’d imagine is the height of selective beyond perhaps small pockets of Oxford. Imagine the vast majority nationally are somewhat easier to get a spot if you get your wallet out. That said some of the differences probably less obvious when you move to more rural areas. Certainly my state secondary had very good facilities.
RammyMP said:
....The wife’s a primary teacher at the local grammar,
..and it's fee paying? What sort of school is it - grammar schools are for 11+, so "primary" doesn't make any obvious sense.ETA: OK, I see explanations above now.
Apparently the numbers can vary quite a bit year to year - daughter teaches at an actual grammer school (11+, no fees) and they're 10% down for Sept. I'm not sure what that means in money terms but she seems to think it's a bit of a disaster.
She was discussing local state schools and even some of the ones perceived as being "nice" have massive behaviour problems, mainly linked to drug use. She reckons often ignored by "middle class" parents who used drugs at uni and have carried on using.
Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 1st April 20:03
ClaphamGT3 said:
Zio Di Roma said:
Loughborough for a start.
When the Govt introduced comprehensive schools and phased out grammars and secondary moderns, a number of grammar schools elected to become fee paying, normally supported via the old direct grant model. When direct grant was phased out, those remaining grammars could choose to become comprehensives under their LEA or become fully independent fee paying schools. Many of them that became independent opted to keep "Grammar" in their name. Crumpet said:
What we’re seeing with the state primary that they’re at - which is actually a pretty good one with a good catchment area - is that once the child reaches the required level they’re as good as forgotten about. There’s no pushing them, no advanced work and no focus on excellence.
With the best will in the world that's most unlikely to be feasible - the normal lessons have to deal with a wide range of abilities as it is.Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 1st April 22:00
Cheib said:
Article in The TImes this weekend
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-schools...
Says 23 % of parents are taking their kids out of private education if VAT comes in. If that is really the case a lot of private school will shut, most would be losing money with that kind of attrition. Personally think that number is high.
Show me a study from somebody not affiliated with private schools, rightwing think tanks or their press supporters. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-schools...
Says 23 % of parents are taking their kids out of private education if VAT comes in. If that is really the case a lot of private school will shut, most would be losing money with that kind of attrition. Personally think that number is high.
When local authorities, teaching unions and left leaning think start saying that it's a bad idea I might start taking those arguments more seriously.
It's very easy to make a study that shows what you want and the original study that started off this narrative have assumptions that you could drive a coach and horses through.
However to be numerate about this the average private school fees for a day pupil is about £17,000pa. The average spend per state secondary pupil is £7,200. If 20% VAT is included in that £17k it leaves £14,166 left to be spent on the pupil. That's twice what the state school pupil gets.
There is therefore plenty of headroom for schools to cut staff and facilities and still maintain a higher standard of service than for a state school. Even without the slight cut in spend per pupil you still also maintain the exclusivity, connections and freedom from deprivation based social issues that come with private schools.
Schools are managed by sensible people who aren't going to try to make them go out of business. As such they are likely to do some combination of raising fees and cutting costs that will result in all their places being filled.
In short the only private schools likely to be affected are a subset of private schools which have a per pupil spend comparable to state schools and might have to raise fees because they can't cut facilities or staff. These schools are generally of a religious character, personally I have no issues with this sort of institution being squeezed for social cohesion reasons.
Edited by Talksteer on Monday 1st April 20:48
Magnum 475 said:
Needless to say, after looking at the village primary, we sent our two to private prep schools. Simple fact here: the state system isn't fit for purpose. Putting VAT on private education won't make the state system fit for purpose, but will appease the envy fairness brigade. Guess I'll just have to work a bit harder for the next few years.
Fixed that for you, this isn't a jealousy based fee it's the removal of a tax break.This is a tax break currently given to those of significantly above average income advantaging their own children.
See my previous post on why it's b
ks to suggest that vat will result in more pupils in the state sector.ClaphamGT3 said:
When the Govt introduced comprehensive schools and phased out grammars and secondary moderns, a number of grammar schools elected to become fee paying, normally supported via the old direct grant model. When direct grant was phased out, those remaining grammars could choose to become comprehensives under their LEA or become fully independent fee paying schools. Many of them that became independent opted to keep "Grammar" in their name.
And when some which became comps made the change, new schools were founded which are sometimes called Grammar Schools. Talksteer said:
However to be numerate about this the average private school fees for a day pupil is about £17,000pa. The average spend per state secondary pupil is £7,200. If 20% VAT is included in that £17k it leaves £14,166 left to be spent on the pupil. That's twice what the state school pupil gets.
But average parent who pays already that 7.2k from their taxes even though they do not use the state system, so in total they are actually spending 24.2k for a single child education. If you impose further tax, what are the chances of various -you might call- extreme scenarios would happen ? They might take their kid out of private and send to state. They might just say hell with it, leave the country and work somewhere else and move their family with them. So how much actually revenue the state education losing in these various scenarios? Well, if you believe in 'compounding' how much actually a country would lose multiple families of brain-drain? Do they have all these scenarios calculated with specific probabilities? was not the same political party who actually abolished the selective state schools (Grammars) ? Beyond all quantifiable questions, what is their moral response to people if their kids would really choose to learn in an atmosphere that is stimulating and provide further facilities that encourage nothing but academic progress but means further taxes?Edited by Talksteer on Monday 1st April 20:48
my brother is the head of a fee paying grammer school, and is very worried about this.
Most of the parents wont raise an eyebrow at the rise, but they try hard to fill spaces with kids with less affluent parents, so it will have an impact.
How much nobody knows, how much pressure this will put on state schools , nobody knows.
All i know is that i went to a private grammar school and then a state secondary school, and the difference in my education and others was noticeable.
i did however enjoy the state school alot more. mainly because i had already been taught most of what they were teaching me, so could ride free. i left as soon as i could tho, so no loss. School wasnt my thing as very dislexic, and that wasnt really a thing in the 80,s. I was classed as lazy and stupid instead.In both schools.
Most of the parents wont raise an eyebrow at the rise, but they try hard to fill spaces with kids with less affluent parents, so it will have an impact.
How much nobody knows, how much pressure this will put on state schools , nobody knows.
All i know is that i went to a private grammar school and then a state secondary school, and the difference in my education and others was noticeable.
i did however enjoy the state school alot more. mainly because i had already been taught most of what they were teaching me, so could ride free. i left as soon as i could tho, so no loss. School wasnt my thing as very dislexic, and that wasnt really a thing in the 80,s. I was classed as lazy and stupid instead.In both schools.
The harsh reality is that the academically selective corner of our private school system delivers leavers with the highest levels of academic achievement. If the introduction of VAT means that the pool of families competing for places at these highly selective private schools is reduced in size, then entrance requirements will fall. If entrance standards fall, so will the volume and quality of highly capable leavers. This won’t be helpful to our economy - and ultimately living standards - in the long-run.
The money raised from VAT on school fees could be spent on providing assisted places in these academically selective private schools. Say 25% of each joining year group. Those places would go to the kids who today can pass the entrance exams but whose families can’t afford to send them. With an increased pool of families competing for places (because of the many assisted places available) entrance standards would actually increase. The volume and quality of highly capable leavers also.
The current proposal feels like “levelling down”. It will mean that places in our highest performing schools go to less academically capable kids from the wealthiest families. This feels like a complete own goal in terms of rational policy-making.
The money raised from VAT on school fees could be spent on providing assisted places in these academically selective private schools. Say 25% of each joining year group. Those places would go to the kids who today can pass the entrance exams but whose families can’t afford to send them. With an increased pool of families competing for places (because of the many assisted places available) entrance standards would actually increase. The volume and quality of highly capable leavers also.
The current proposal feels like “levelling down”. It will mean that places in our highest performing schools go to less academically capable kids from the wealthiest families. This feels like a complete own goal in terms of rational policy-making.
Edited by WindyCommon on Monday 1st April 22:29
Zio Di Roma said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Zio Di Roma said:
Loughborough for a start.
When the Govt introduced comprehensive schools and phased out grammars and secondary moderns, a number of grammar schools elected to become fee paying, normally supported via the old direct grant model. When direct grant was phased out, those remaining grammars could choose to become comprehensives under their LEA or become fully independent fee paying schools. Many of them that became independent opted to keep "Grammar" in their name. I think there's around 150 of them in England.
Zaichik said:
Talksteer said:
Fixed that for you, this isn't a jealousy based fee it's the removal of a tax break.
This is a tax break currently given to those of significantly above average income advantaging their own children.
So why not charge it on university too?This is a tax break currently given to those of significantly above average income advantaging their own children.
The debate around university fees is a completely different one, not least because there isn't a university that your parents can buy you into directly.
Sheepshanks said:
In addition, and I don't know how the transition worked, but some grammar schools remained as state schools - one of my daughters teaches at one that's over 100yrs old. Places are allocated by the local authority, but require an 11+ pass to get in.
I think there's around 150 of them in England.
The counties of Lincolnshire, Kent, Buckinghamshire and the London boroughs of Bromley, Bexley and Sutton opted to retain their grammar schools and nor move to a fully comprehensive model. The same is true in NII think there's around 150 of them in England.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff