…In thinking that parents would welcome cheaper, less flashy private schools

My children are going to a no frills prep school. Still 14 in a class, good range of subjects and extra curriculars, excellent wrap around. Just not particularly flashy facilities but there are good facilities in the town e.g pool which they use with their own swimming teacher etc. The £9k is easily worth it for the wraparound and impact not having that would have on my career. A nanny would be more expensive.

If your child displays challenging behaviour their feet don’t touch the floor at the local private schools here. Harsh if it’s your child but it’s what the other parents are paying for I guess. State schools get penalised for expelling pupils so their bar is way lower. That’s why you can’t really compare the two it’s apples and pears.

Because that wouldn’t remove problem children from the school. The point of private education is not that it’s expensive and well resourced. The main benefit is that it’s selective and they can refuse admission or expel pupils for bad behaviour.

Why don't the 93% of parents who already attend state school do this? Because it is easier to spend other people's money.
I am already saving the state 7K per year so I don't feel the need to fund something we aren't using above and beyond the taxes we currently pay. If push comes to shove and it was a choice between VAT or income tax we would choose income tax.
Why is it always the responsibility of private parents to improve state schools, there are plenty of wealthy parents in the state sector. Why aren't they already contributing? Don't say they are because we all know the majority don't make additional voluntary donations.

As I have said 100s of times we would be happy with an education tax through income tax as we have no issue with paying our taxes. What I object to is a spite tax that will have zero impact being used as smoke and mirrors for the fact Labour aren't committing to actually improving state education in any meaningful way

OK so answer this: how is it fair that Labour have today announced that state boarding schools will be exempt from VAT?
Parents pay the boarding fees at these school but they now won't have to pay VAT.
How are they any different from parents paying for private school boarding?

Is it 'fair' that we pay tax (DH higher rate), take zero from the state, relieve the burden on the state for the education of our child yet are now being hit with more tax?

This highlights the financial gains of the policy and hits home that it is 100% ideological and nothing to do with improving schools.

My kids have done both and it’s like night and day. It’s not just the facilities are better it’s that they have proper qualified teachers for all their subjects who aren’t off sick all the time with stress related illness. Smaller class sizes mean they get support when they are struggling so they can catch up. They do music and art and drama properly because not every lesson is drilling for sats or made up ofsted bullshit. I don’t think the things that make it better are things I should be paying for frankly but the education system has been underfunded for years and I am fortunate to be in a position where I can fill in what’s missing for my dc.

Yes this puzzles me too.

There should be demand for a niche offerings that don't do the expensive stuff. The obvious one would be a cheap super-selective school, where the value is really in the quality of the other students not the expensive facilities. Tightly banded selective schools would not necessarily need small classes either, as it's much easier to teach a narrow ability range of very able students.

I wonder if it's scholarships that break that model (the super-smart kids get subsidised elsewhere anyway).

A cheap, private Michaela might work too.

I think there would be a market for this.

Some parents might want an academically selective school with good teaching and manageable class sizes for a lower cost. Be prepared to forgo the acres of pitches, the drama studio, etc etc. Parents can access sports and music and other extra curricular outside of school.

I agree . Start one ! It’s a very valid point .

And I think Starmer ought to be the first to start paying (a large contribution) for his kids' state education.

He's worth millions apparently. State schools are in crisis. So pay up.

I went to a sink school. A craze went through the school to slash (with a compass) the brand new interactive white boards. One kid admitted to doing the first one, and thought he was a hero for doing it. He got a detention.

My friend was deliberately tripped up ‘for a laugh’ and lost her two front (adult) teeth. School advised her mum it was a police matter as they couldn’t do much about it.

I cannot afford 30k a year to send DD to a bells and whistles independent but I’d prioritise 10K to send her to a school that did have a basic expectation for behaviour.

Or, maybe all of this could be helped if schools could easily expel kids that constantly drain all their resources with their lack of respect and parents who just treat schools as free childcare.

Me too.
Although tbh I think we are getting this currently in the primary state system. Both my children (reception and year 3) are in classes of about 20. There are 2 classes per year group, but 3 teachers per year group, which enables lots of small groups interventions. The school say this means they never need supply teachers as have extra teachers on staff, so is more cost effective, but I still have no idea how they afford it with fewer children. Every class also has 2 teaching assistants, and they are a teacher training centre so student teachers in most year groups too. On site pool, forest school, cooking and science labs, specialist PE music and drama teachers in addition to already high staffing levels.
Excellent behaviour, lots of enhancing oppurtuinities from visiting drama groups, yoga, individual music lessons from year 3. And a broad mix of children with approx 20% FSM.
I'm not quite sure what else we would get in private?

But secondary we will definitely consider it as our local secondaries are not great.

What would tempt me is a school that is expensive enough that parents have made a deliberate decision to send their kids there but not so expensive I can't afford (clearly). Therefore, you have a classroom of children with parental support, so hopefully, fairly well-behaved kids who want to learn and won't disrupt lessons or force many teachers off long-term sick. Then, the class can cover way more in a year than in some of our less happy state schools. If that can be done at an affordable price, I'd be in. Amazing facilities are nice extras.

As for drama and music, this can be done out of school, and better. The same goes for minority sports. It involves more parental input, at least at the early stages, but I personally think that is a good thing.

Having stuff done out of school creates logistical issues for parents who are trying to work though. A more sensible solution would be to carve everything up into chunks - you can just pay for basic tuition separately, and then choose which extra curriculars or clubs or extras you want to add on top (or choose to do none at all). I think private schools are likely to go this way anyway, because this enables them to put VAT on some things but not on others, since it's accepted that swimming lessons offered separately would not have VAT levied on them etc.

Agree and you're massively underestimating a teachers salary there. The average teacher is earning well over £40k.