To think State education is really poor?

You do realise there won’t be any additional cash. Even Labour has agreed that the headline figure is misleading.

Firstly there is the cost to fund additional state places.

Secondly there is a cost caused by the change in behaviour that will result from the move to state. If I use state schools I won’t pay 250k fees. I also won’t pay 50k VAT. But more significant than that I won’t need 600k of earnings to fund the 300k I no longer need to pay. This means 300k less income tax receipts as I’ll work 4 days, retire earlier etc.

It soon becomes obvious that this policy will actually cost the tax payer money.

There are loads of wonderful, inspirational teachers in state schools. Who are there because they believe every kid should get a chance. Yes we have low budgets and less equipment (rainwear for the whole school? No way) but that in no way means we are crap teachers! We are also juggling a wide range of needs with far higher numbers. But unless you are exceptionally well off and can afford to dismiss us, you should appreciate that most of us are doing the best we can for your kid! I know there are some crap teachers. They annoy good teachers just as much as they annoy the parents. But your OP is just plain silly. Of course if you pay loads you get more equipment and opportunities. The issue is you have to pay.

Well the extra cash will be useful. But like many I will expect labour to bring in other measures on top to counteract the unfairness and inequality in all sectors of life caused by private education.

HumourM3 what other measures will Labour bring in?

Ofsted ratings mean very little to many families. Our local “good” state primary is dreadful. Pupils join in reception far exceeding national averages in assessments, and yet leave in year 6 performing far below average. Around 60% leave without having reached the expected standards in English and maths. Pupils and teachers are leaving in droves. There have been violent incidents. Perhaps Ofsted views that as “good”. As a parent, I certainly don’t.

No-ones forcing you to do anything, if there's enough of you in that area, send your kids local and raise it's standards and spend the extra cash on extra curricular

Very cruel to say all state schools are “crap”. Awful.

Mine thriving in a single sex state dd1 aced her GCSEs and on track for top a levels top
level university offers nice decent like minded friends. We supplement sport and tutors where needed. It’s not perfect but many of the teachers are amazing. The biggest issue seems to be teacher retention. I do resent it when some of those that choose to privately educate want to justify their choice by slagging off state schools. Had it in real life it’s not on. .

It is pretty much the exact opposite of this.

Virtually all the private school parents I know have had experience of decent state schools whether that be as children themselves, through a mix of private and state use or from friends and family experiences.

They would love to have this for their own children however the option is not always there in their locality.

If there was excellent state school provision local to me I would not be spending 250k on private schools.

This is why the tax feels so unfair. It will cost me an additional 50k simply because I live in the wrong post code. Other families living a short distance away in excellent state catchment areas can afford to earn far less, pay less tax, have a decent level of schooling provided and yet have the same disposable income as we do.

When parents who were fortunate enough to live in excellent state catchment areas start commenting about private schools I would flip the original question around and ask does anyone think that those defending excellent state schools have very little experience of poor state schools? Perhaps if they did they’d understand the position many of us who are effectively forced to use private schools find ourselves in. We don’t spend £250k+ for no reason.

What extra cash? If >10% of DC leave private schools then the net income will be £0.
There has already been a 2.7% reduction before Laboir have even won the election.
The policy is not sustainable as it will result in behaviour change.
If Labour were truly bothered about improving schools they would raise revenue through income tax. As an example, a 1p ring fenced education tax for higher rate payers could bring in £10+billion per year. However they aren't propsing that are they?

@Fionaville this doesn't surprise me. But I dont think it follows that the private school is "better". Exam results tend to reflect the catchment / demographics of the pupil population

…And his Education Secretary; Ruth Kelly at the time IIRC, scrapped support for night schools, stopping adult learners being able to access qualifications. It was so sudden that the college (16-19 in the day but did night school too) I worked at had people on the doors on the evening that the night school should have started, apologising and having to refund everyone who’d booked on to classes as they could no longer run them.

Well the extra cash will be useful. But like many I will expect labour to bring in other measures on top to counteract the unfairness and inequality in all sectors of life caused by private education.

I can see you are sold on the policy but it won’t do what you’re after

The issue is the privately educated with the same grades unfairly represented in the top jobs and unis. It needs to be recognised and measures put in place to stop it. Then frankly nobody will give a shit about private education at all- but of course those in the private system don’t want that. They want the status quo to carry on whilst pretending to care. 😂

Not many parents pay from 4-18 and a lot mix and match state.

VAT will bring in £1.6 billion. The unfair advantages private education causes needs to stop with proper measures put in place. Then it wont be a teeny tiny number benefiting but the vast majority.

If >10% leave private school then there will be £0 income from VAT.
For every DC that leaves private means an extra burden on the state because that pupil now needs funding.
Short sighted.
If DC from state schools get the same grades and have a better life experience then what is the issue with private schools? Leave is to waste our money for no benefit for our DC.

I’m not sure the most appropriate way to correct perceived discrimination is to create an alternative discrimination in the opposite direction.

I’ll say it again, if what you say is true, then why would you support a policy that will make the situation you appear to have an issue with even worse? It makes no sense.

Does anyone think that those defending private education have very little experience of good state education?

Absolutely.

Plus you have to be able to defend forking out upwards of £150k - £200k per child for a private education from age 4 through to 18.

Hardly any low earners can access private education. All children from low and middle income families should have the same chances as kids from rich families. Sorting out private education unfairness properly will level the playing field far wider and in a more though way- but of course those with kids privately educated don’t want that.😂

It’s not unfair discrimination. At the moment private school pupils are unfairly represented in the top jobs and unis for literally no good recon as state pupils get the same grades and actually have far better life experience. That is unfair discrimination and needs to change.

Of course labour don’t care because a tiny number of families get bursaries and a tiny number will pull out of private. The scaremongering and frothing is all from MNers with kids in private. The rest of the country know the reality and the damage private education causes. The Tories lack of any attempt to sort the huge inequalities private education brings just showcases their entire time in power.

We’ve used both and we have similar results from state for Ds, STEM at RG

I don’t agree with the VAT policy due to all the reasons that keep coming up. It’s just a gimmick and will have poorer outcomes

We did state primary because the village state school was fab.
Private secondary because local state secondaries are dire.
State 6th form because the local 6th form college ie great.

I am not ideologically wed to private but I just want to do the best for my DD.
If we were in a grammar area then she would probably have gone to grammar.

There are good and bad schools in both sectors, most of us just do what is best for our DC.

The 90,000+ SEN DC in private are there for a reason ie mainstream state can't accommodate them.

Fundamentally the comprehensive 1 size fits all has proved not to work. It doesn't work for many SEN, it doesn't work for many high achievers and it doesn't work for many low achievers. What we actually need is MORE choice not less.

Does anyone think that those defending private education have very little experience of good state education?

We considered private education for DD for secondary but when we did the maths it was clear that it would be a huge stretch and we wouldn't be able to support DD through university. We took the view that paying for a tutor would be an option if required, which we did just for maths as she had a not great maths teacher.

DD went to a good state comprehensive, smashed her GCSEs and A levels and graduated from an RG university that required AAA with a first in a STEM degree.

The all state schools are rubbish mantra is simply not true.