To think that improving state schools needs people to pay an e.g. a state school tax?

I don’t mind them getting high salaries but some of them are unreasonably high. And when bankers got it all wrong I don’t remember them getting any sort of consequences, they asked state for help.

We already pay tax for education. your whish to pay separately is not our problem - its not taxing education it's taxing elitism and it should be taxed. the private schools should also all loose their charitable status.

for two long the private schools have had an unfair tax position.

If you're not happy paying more maybe talk to the school about their over-inflated fees -or you could put them in the state system - which has been excellent for our DDs.

But adding VAT to school fees is the correct thing to do.

'then we have to pay fees for some classes. Some are for required classes. Some are for optional ones. This basically means that poorer children don’t really have the choice to take some of the more expensive classes because they have to consider the cost. How the school is allowed to charge for required classes eludes me.'

This seems the worst of all systems to me. Segregation by wealth, in class for everyone to see. And to be reminded of one's poverty on a daily basis! And denied access to drama or music simply for that reason. How miserable for some children. They're making people feel like 2nd class citizens from a very early age.

I come from an age where we FSM children were called out at the start of assembly each term and told to go to the office to deal with the paperwork. It was open season for the bullies. 🙁

Not this government though. They'd give the money to their mates and continue to screw the education sector over.

How much was allocated to education in the last budget?!

Countries like Ireland expect parents to put their hands in their pockets to pay for things like books, stationery. At least that stop teachers having to pay for things.

Some also pay towards GP appointments

Don’t hold your breath - the money will go towards academic tutoring, music lessons, tennis lessons, riding lessons, cultural enrichment, university fees, house deposits.

This is likely to be posted by someone who has no idea in these senior level roles with packages like this of (1) how much pressure there can be to ensure successful delivery, (2) the extent of the consequences if something were to go wrong personally and on a company-wide scale, i.e. the 'risk level' of the role, and who the role holder is answerable to, (3) the amount of specialised experience required to perform the role effectively, and (4) the amount of complexity involved in the role and for decision making. Profits are not circumstantial, they are derived from a number of complex factors including strategy, market knowledge and many other things that it's probably pointless to outline given that so many people love to wallow in their bitterness and entitlement therefore their comprehension of such things is automatically limited (and rendering them incapable of performing in a role like this too).

These parents in the 'naice' area are probably the ones paying more tax already, by your logic they are more wealthy. But how about pensioners and those living in council properties in these areas, may have moved there before property prices rose. Should they pay extra? How about a widowed parent who moved there when relatively well off with 2 parents but now on 1 income they are struggling. Do we base the areas which should charge this on ofsted grade? Exams results? How about children who come into the school from outside the area due to having a specific need only that school can meet? Do they pay extra too? How about schools which are in really deprived areas but which are thriving due to excellent leadership?

I think our area would be described as nice, and our girls state school thrives because parent voluntarily put a lot of time and money into it. Not a week goes by where we aren't asked for a contribution to something or other, which is absolutely fine, we are happy (and able) to pay for our girls to have a fantastic school experience. Most parents do pay, a few can't afford to and there is no pressure on them to do so, it thrives on goodwill and acceptance that we are all different in our abilities to control the school commuinity. Make this compulsory and you risk losing the goodwill of the parents and putting those who are struggling into even greater debt.

Already pay vast amounts of tax so no, no appetite here to pay a charge to access state education. Besides we were paying a charge called private school fees, but after all the bit by on here, I think we’ll save our money for ourselves.

The government has enough money, it is wasteful, inefficient and unproductive. That is why services are rubbish.

The real problem with things like this is always the delta.

If Labour had proposed say a 4% rise per year to the VAT maximum of 20% over 5 years then that would not have been so disruptive and allowed a significant number of people to manage their way out of the affordability trap.

This way Labour could have continued to wage their culture war without imposing the huge disruptive change on private school parents and the schools themselves and getting the political fall out from that.

It's not as if the policy is going to raise any net money anyway.

Agree.

My children are privately educated but I am really cringing at a lot of the posts on here at the moment.

(And they really aren't a good advertisement for private education as there is a real lack of rational thought or compassion in a lot of them).

Education needs more money but all the money goes to the wrong places. Here are some ideas from a teacher - abolish ofsted it would save a fortune. Instead make head teachers conduct inspections. Head teachers seem to do very little for their money in my experience. Reduce head teachers salaries. Some get paid more than the Prime Minister. Head teacher salaries have spiralled upwards 'to attract the best' whilst ordinary teacher salaries have done the opposite.

Cut spending on elaborate IT systems in schools. When money is tight it should go to the frontline. There's no point spending a fortune collecting and analysing data if teaching in the school is poor and behaviour is atrocious.

A less popular suggestion. Abolish most teaching assistants and instead have fewer specially trained SEN teachers working in hubs in all schools. TAs are often great individuals used very poorly.

Increase teachers pay so teaching is once again a profession which attracts the best. Cut bullshit courses and only recruit teachers who are highly literate.

I think the only way to improve state education is to ban private schools.

Yes, state schools need a lot more funding. They should be a priority. The fact that the vast majority of the highest earners, senior politicians and party donors buy better education for their own children - from private schools or through spending £1million+ on homes in the catchment areas for the best state schools - means that the people who make the decisions on how much funding state schools should receive have no skin in the game.

It's funny though how school academy trusts can afford to pay their CEO's an average of £150,000 - and some as much as £200,000 - but can't afford the basics for kids.

You'll find schools are like the NHS now IMO, no matter how much money you pump into the system there will be very little difference on the ground. Pump in more money and those at the top will just get paid more and more while most of the problems at the bottom remain. They still won't be able to recruit enough teachers, there won't be properly trained pastoral care, enough school nurses or visits from the Ed psych to go round and there won't be nearly enough SEN schools for kids that need them.

But the government can magic up 2.5 billion to force kids to volunteer for one day a month at 18.

'the state education' - are you missing a word there, such as system?
In short I would vote for a party who actually get their priorities right, in terms of spending.

I'd like them to do both.

Based on discussion with teachers. The issues in SOME state schools is societal. Children who have basically not been parented, have zero respect for their teachers or for education generally. Parents unquestioningly back their child every time
not the school. This is a deeper societal issue and won’t be solved by upping school funding. Why it’s less acute in middle class areas that value education and school authority.

Ah I see. Well I do agree. I and lots I know would pay more tax, if we knew it was going to benefit education and the NHS

I no longer have DC in school but am happy to pay more tax which could be used for a variety of services, including education. So if Labour get in, increase tax and put VAT on school fees the I am ok with that.

It’s not like VAT on school fees has suddenly come out of the blue is it ? All this bullshit about 6 weeks notice - the policy has been discussed on here a lot for some time.

I’m not in the UK. My child attends an excellent state school. Part of the reason it is excellent is because they charge fees. How they are legally allowed to charge fees I do not understand, but they do.

We pay a materials fee for books and computers and the beginning of the year. That has been going on since I was a child so isn’t hugely surprising.

then we have to pay fees for some classes. Some are for required classes. Some are for optional ones. This basically means that poorer children don’t really have the choice to take some of the more expensive classes because they have to consider the cost. How the school is allowed to charge for required classes eludes me.

We can easily afford all of it so we just pay it and are happy our child is at such a great school. I don’t like the ethics of the system, but my discussions with the school system are focused on making sure my child’s SN are properly supported so I have no political capital left.

So everyone pays more tax. Along with increased rent / mortgage / council tax/ utilities etc and this will reduce poverty?

How would you identify those who ‘use’ schools? Pupils? their parents? their future employers? those who use services and skills taught to those pupils throughout their lives?
Education is a right.

Yes I cant see any problem with those on benefits, or nurses relying on food banks, being asked to pay £1500 a year for their child's 'free' state education. How could they possibly go wrong

Do you understand the concept of free state education? Presumably not. For reference it's the same as NHS free treatment. Or are you also proposing to tax the ill?

I would like to see private schooling abolished. VAT on school fees is a baby step forward. But a step is better than standing still.

On a different subject, OP you seem to be suggesting by your repeated questioning about how to improve state schools, that they face insurmountable problems and are failing. Neither of these things are true. Admittedly I teach in London, and the state schools here are good, but the biggest problems state schools face can very much be solved with increased funding.

Teacher recruitment and retention, reduced workload, specialist teachers (MFL, PE, drama, etc), SEN support and provision, increased mental health care and support, EAL specialists, better and wider sport and arts opportunities, sustained teacher training... that's largely cashflow. It's also about management and curriculum demands and education as a political football. But money would help. A lot.