Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
How does it work with schools like Tiffin in Kingston?
That is a very high performing school that is selective, not a grammar, but is state? Conversely Kingston Grammar School is now fee paying.
Ironically I think Reigate Grammar where Sir Starmer went was a grammar which became private very close to/when he was there..!
That is a very high performing school that is selective, not a grammar, but is state? Conversely Kingston Grammar School is now fee paying.
Ironically I think Reigate Grammar where Sir Starmer went was a grammar which became private very close to/when he was there..!
ClaphamGT3 said:
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 NI
Perhaps we’re at cross purposes, but there are loads more areas with state grammar schools.Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 1st April 22:56
ClaphamGT3 said:
Apologies- don't really keep track of what happens on the far side of the snow-line
Sorry to use Wikipedia as a source, but there’s a list there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_grammar_scho...Sheepshanks said:
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
RammyMP said:
Thanks - I’d say that’s not a grammar school as people know them these days. It’s an independent school which has kept “grammar” in its name.richhead said:
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.
Again let's get numerate, the total number of pupils who go fee free to private schools is 1% of the intake, 7% have some sort of discount.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.
The cynic might suggest that it's done to throw a veneer of charity over a sector which is mostly about self interest. It also has the effect of removing talented pupils from the state sector so it's likely not even positive at the society level.
ooid said:
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
The point is that schools have plenty of head room to cut some of the luxury features that they've added over the past 20 years.
Private school fees inflation has massively outpaced general inflation over the past 20 years as schools have added more staff and facilities. So a 20% cut in facilities and staff would equate to the service being the same as it was in 2016.
I don't think many people are going to emigrate over that!
Talksteer said:
richhead said:
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.
Again let's get numerate, the total number of pupils who go fee free to private schools is 1% of the intake, 7% have some sort of discount.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.
The cynic might suggest that it's done to throw a veneer of charity over a sector which is mostly about self interest. It also has the effect of removing talented pupils from the state sector so it's likely not even positive at the society level.
Talksteer said:
richhead said:
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.
Again let's get numerate, the total number of pupils who go fee free to private schools is 1% of the intake, 7% have some sort of discount.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.
The cynic might suggest that it's done to throw a veneer of charity over a sector which is mostly about self interest. It also has the effect of removing talented pupils from the state sector so it's likely not even positive at the society level.
If you're going to tax education, you need to tax university education too. But that won't happen because it won't win votes.
Zio Di Roma said:
Talksteer said:
richhead said:
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.
Again let's get numerate, the total number of pupils who go fee free to private schools is 1% of the intake, 7% have some sort of discount.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.
The cynic might suggest that it's done to throw a veneer of charity over a sector which is mostly about self interest. It also has the effect of removing talented pupils from the state sector so it's likely not even positive at the society level.
If you're going to tax education, you need to tax university education too. But that won't happen because it won't win votes.
It’s absolute envy politics. It’s amazing how people feel hard done by the fee paying parents they feel so hard done by that they feel it’s fair for them to pay even more!
It’s a joke, driven by vote grabbing. Make more state schools, increase quality and then private schools will become obsolete. This won’t happen because to improve quality you need much more schools and money invested in education. Costs too much and on the face of an election may not be the vote grabbing policy that taxing the “rich” always is.
Next will be cut all the free services to people that can “afford”. The amount of tax paid by a small proportion of the population is incredible but still some people push for more and more. It will reach a breaking point, particularly when the professional classes start to wind down working hours, etc.
It’s an idiotic policy and one not geared for growth. Want growth? Reduce income tax and get more people to pay some in. That will get you economic growth and most likely more net tax takings. But that’s not a “popular” move…
It’s a joke, driven by vote grabbing. Make more state schools, increase quality and then private schools will become obsolete. This won’t happen because to improve quality you need much more schools and money invested in education. Costs too much and on the face of an election may not be the vote grabbing policy that taxing the “rich” always is.
Next will be cut all the free services to people that can “afford”. The amount of tax paid by a small proportion of the population is incredible but still some people push for more and more. It will reach a breaking point, particularly when the professional classes start to wind down working hours, etc.
It’s an idiotic policy and one not geared for growth. Want growth? Reduce income tax and get more people to pay some in. That will get you economic growth and most likely more net tax takings. But that’s not a “popular” move…
Talksteer said:
The point is that schools have plenty of head room to cut some of the luxury features that they've added over the past 20 years.
I am really not sure they do to be honest. The larger schools in the 'top ten' might do, but I suspect the vast majority don't.My ex wife is a school governor and a good friend is also a governor - both are small private schools. Both of these schools are facing difficult decisions and both will be passing on a 10% rise in fees. The other 10% is being saved by some pretty deep cuts - letting grounds staff go, cutting teachers, one looking at selling some land to 'get them through'. Both schools fear that any drop in pupil numbers and the schools become economically unviable and would have to close.
The first issue is where would these pupils go if the schools had to close? The local state school cannot take any more, they're already full. The second is that both schools currently open their facilities (swimming pools, sports pitches etc) to local state schools... I guess the land could be sold for housing.
It seems a very short-sighted policy that could ultimately cost the tax payer billions. If 30% of private pupils have to move to state education because of higher fees or smaller schools closing, it will cost the tax payer £1.3bn annually.
Once the small private schools close, they won't magically reappear. A great shame.
NDA said:
Talksteer said:
The point is that schools have plenty of head room to cut some of the luxury features that they've added over the past 20 years.
I am really not sure they do to be honest. The larger schools in the 'top ten' might do, but I suspect the vast majority don't.My ex wife is a school governor and a good friend is also a governor - both are small private schools. Both of these schools are facing difficult decisions and both will be passing on a 10% rise in fees. The other 10% is being saved by some pretty deep cuts - letting grounds staff go, cutting teachers, one looking at selling some land to 'get them through'. Both schools fear that any drop in pupil numbers and the schools become economically unviable and would have to close.
The first issue is where would these pupils go if the schools had to close? The local state school cannot take any more, they're already full. The second is that both schools currently open their facilities (swimming pools, sports pitches etc) to local state schools... I guess the land could be sold for housing.
It seems a very short-sighted policy that could ultimately cost the tax payer billions. If 30% of private pupils have to move to state education because of higher fees or smaller schools closing, it will cost the tax payer £1.3bn annually.
Once the small private schools close, they won't magically reappear. A great shame.
Teachers in independent schools usually get paid less than state school teachers, and they're often not in the Teachers Pension Scheme (although the Head will often have a final salary pension) so they've already got per person staff costs lower than state schools. Aside from staff everything else they spend money on pales into insignificance.
They make very little as they reinvest into the school, they aren't run as huge profit making businesses. As stated, prep schools will be killed off as they are too small to survive. Few schools have great reserves so will be forced to pass on the increase. If you cut all that is good from a private school why would you pay so much to send children there?
The envy of the policy is ludicrous. Families paying taxes to fund state education and not using it is a gain for the state. Forcing children into a system that can't cope with what it already has is lunacy, all to prove some idiotic point.
The envy of the policy is ludicrous. Families paying taxes to fund state education and not using it is a gain for the state. Forcing children into a system that can't cope with what it already has is lunacy, all to prove some idiotic point.
Tom8 said:
They make very little as they reinvest into the school, they aren't run as huge profit making businesses. As stated, prep schools will be killed off as they are too small to survive. Few schools have great reserves so will be forced to pass on the increase. If you cut all that is good from a private school why would you pay so much to send children there?
The envy of the policy is ludicrous. Families paying taxes to fund state education and not using it is a gain for the state. Forcing children into a system that can't cope with what it already has is lunacy, all to prove some idiotic point.
I think there is an argument that VAT on school fees will actuallyt result in worse outcomes in state sector as more free places need to be found. Hardly the outcome society want but one that could happenThe envy of the policy is ludicrous. Families paying taxes to fund state education and not using it is a gain for the state. Forcing children into a system that can't cope with what it already has is lunacy, all to prove some idiotic point.
Having kids in private school and knowing how many bursaries/assisted places and facilites that are open to the public, we have to remember that this was done to avoid losing charity status which relates to VAT. If this is changed and VAT charged the school isn't going to pay to provide facilities to outsiders and I'd expect the numebr of assited places to drop off a cliff.
It's pure socialist green eyed policy and will be very bad for the UK scholls closing faciltiies closing, private schools also bring on an aweful lot of our Olympian talent, thats not going to happen in the local comp.. The amount of knock on effects are going to be huge!
Also interesting large schoosl will be able to reclaim capatial spend VAT back 5 years theres even one report saying it coudl cost the gov £1.4b over the next 5 years as they pay this back!
It's pure socialist green eyed policy and will be very bad for the UK scholls closing faciltiies closing, private schools also bring on an aweful lot of our Olympian talent, thats not going to happen in the local comp.. The amount of knock on effects are going to be huge!
Also interesting large schoosl will be able to reclaim capatial spend VAT back 5 years theres even one report saying it coudl cost the gov £1.4b over the next 5 years as they pay this back!
Fish said:
Having kids in private school and knowing how many bursaries/assisted places and facilites that are open to the public, we have to remember that this was done to avoid losing charity status which relates to VAT. If this is changed and VAT charged the school isn't going to pay to provide facilities to outsiders and I'd expect the numebr of assited places to drop off a cliff.
It's pure socialist green eyed policy and will be very bad for the UK scholls closing faciltiies closing, private schools also bring on an aweful lot of our Olympian talent, thats not going to happen in the local comp.. The amount of knock on effects are going to be huge!
Also interesting large schoosl will be able to reclaim capatial spend VAT back 5 years theres even one report saying it coudl cost the gov £1.4b over the next 5 years as they pay this back!
I would imagine that a lot of schools will be getting a lot of tax advice at the moment. I have heard of schools that believe that, by the time that they have passed on VAT reclaim savings to fee payers as fee reduction, the effective rate of VAT will be something like 5 - 7%It's pure socialist green eyed policy and will be very bad for the UK scholls closing faciltiies closing, private schools also bring on an aweful lot of our Olympian talent, thats not going to happen in the local comp.. The amount of knock on effects are going to be huge!
Also interesting large schoosl will be able to reclaim capatial spend VAT back 5 years theres even one report saying it coudl cost the gov £1.4b over the next 5 years as they pay this back!
ClaphamGT3 said:
I would imagine that a lot of schools will be getting a lot of tax advice at the moment. I have heard of schools that believe that, by the time that they have passed on VAT reclaim savings to fee payers as fee reduction, the effective rate of VAT will be something like 5 - 7%
Unless they get their teachers to register as limited companies - and they'd mostly have to do it in groups to reach the VAT threshold - it's hard to imagine how the rest of the school's outgoings could be enough to make such a level of VAT recovery.What else do they spend big chunks of money on?
Sheepshanks said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
I would imagine that a lot of schools will be getting a lot of tax advice at the moment. I have heard of schools that believe that, by the time that they have passed on VAT reclaim savings to fee payers as fee reduction, the effective rate of VAT will be something like 5 - 7%
Unless they get their teachers to register as limited companies - and they'd mostly have to do it in groups to reach the VAT threshold - it's hard to imagine how the rest of the school's outgoings could be enough to make such a level of VAT recovery.What else do they spend big chunks of money on?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff