To think if you can no longer afford school fees...

Yes, sorry. I suppose I should think things through a bit better before posting!

@DingDongWitchDingDong

"pays 42k and rents in a naice area"

Which is a choice.

She owns a house in the national park too. She doesn't like it enough to live in it...

it overlooks a beautiful Lake

No, I didn't choose the area or the school.

It's just the area I was born in and it's the closest school to me. But they are all excellent for miles around me so it wouldn't have made any difference in that sense.

As I said I recognise my privilege but regardless I wouldn't have paid as I am ideologically opposed to private education.

My area is full of outstanding schools and they all have spare places.

Also you catchment isn't the priority as is the case in lots of areas.

Define 'worse schools' Surely it is all relative.

In special measures?

I also didn't chose - family here before 1600s

That's what I dont get. If you live in an area where schools are poor performing, and you could comfortably afford to send them to private school, as in your situation, it's bizarre that you would sacrifice the future of your children on the alter of your principles.

Why on earth would you presume I'd be sacrificing their future?

There are teachers in my family and I'm educated to masters level. I would be perfectly capable of providing educational support should it be needed.

As it is though they are thriving in small classes with fantastic teaching in a comp right on my doorstep.

Imagine this. Everyone just went to their local school. Abolish OFSTED’s snobby grading system based on who can perform the best box ticking exercise on a single day. Go to your local school. Before long things will even themselves out.

Good Lord, that would go down like a lead balloon.

The level of vitriol here aimed at parents who use private schools is quite staggering. It's a classic dog whistle policy and really disappointing from labour. Instead of a manifesto promise of major investment that ensures every parent has access to a state education rated at least good, we have a promise of less than 1 extra teacher per school, paid for by an educational tax that nobody really knows the impact of. All those with outstanding state schools are lucky, all those who get their children into grammar school or get state SEN provision are also lucky, so why not campaign seriously for better education for all the not so lucky parents who don't have these things. Taxing 7% of parents might make some people feel better, but it won't touch the sides of improving educational outcomes for the masses. I'm a labour activist and an ex private school parent. I would really like state education to be so good that everyone has a good local school, and SEN provision was available when needed. This policy won't deliver either of these.

@DingDongWitchDingDong

It would especially go down like a lead balloon by those who live in the best catchment areas as being near an outstanding school adds 40k or more to house prices.

@elastamum ,

‘so why not campaign seriously for better education for all the not so lucky parents who don't have these things’.

The problem is the power of a campaign is generally driven by money and influence. The majority of people with money and influence have distanced themselves from normal school so couldn’t care less.

What you are actually arguing for is private school abolition and ‘bussing’, to make the rich and powerful make all schools good enough, as their child might actually end up there.

Of course, that would never work (as this is the one policy which would genuinely get the wealthy to emigrate) but saying ‘campaign for better education’ is like saying ‘campaign for better GPs’- anyone with money already uses a private GP.

You don't have to ban private schools to improve state education. Finland didn't, despite what people think. But you do have to raise more money through taxation. A lot more. And no one is prepared to be honest about what it will take.

And many people aren’t prepared to pay any more tax to fund that improvement. They think that others (private school parents) should pay more towards it though.

@Another76543

"And many people aren’t prepared to pay any more tax to fund that improvement. They think that others (private school parents) should pay more towards it though."

Finland's highest marginal tax rate is 60% isn't it?

@Aladdinzane that's nothing new though is it.

@DingDongWitchDingDong

No, but people often like to claim things about other countries without looking at the tax rates.

Thanks - absolutely! I’m really disappointed to see this kind of policy from Labour. I’m a lifelong labour voter, but I’d like to see genuine structural change, not spiteful policies with limited effects - window-dressing, in other words.

As I posted above, DD has just got a big bursary and scholarship award to a local independent. I’d much prefer to send her state, if we had a good catchment school. (We don’t - and are in a catchment-only area, so no other choices.) But the key thing is that she wants to do academic subjects, especially languages and Classics, and instruments, that simply aren’t on offer anywhere in the state sector where we are. She’s desperate to do Latin, Greek, Classical Civilisation, Italian and other minority languages, which she has a talent in, and which no state school in our entire Local Authority offers. No amount of “middle class parent pressure” is going to magically produce Latin, Italian and Ancient Greek GCSE teachers and courses in our local state schools.

Is closing the only route for ordinary kids to these subjects progressive? There’s zero chance we could find tutors to teach all these subjects to exam level for five years. God forbid any kids might actually be interested in the genuine intellectual and academic aspects of education! But “I can’t/don’t want to do Latin so nobody apart from the rich should”, is not the flex against “privilege” that you think it is. It’s dog-in-the-manger stuff, not progressive policymaking.

The wealthy and super-wealthy will be completely unaffected. But this, as others have said in the thread above, is a way of polarising education even further for middle-income kids - it won’t remotely affect the well-off. That’s why you don’t tax education: it has unintended effects that aren’t actually very positive at all. It makes me feel pretty dismayed about the future of this incoming Labour administration, actually - it makes me think they aren’t really going to address the issues facing us at all, if they don’t appear to understand them at a basic level.

@Another76543

And many people aren’t prepared to pay any more tax to fund that improvement. They think that others (private school parents) should pay more towards it though.
Which is ironic as every private school dc that turns to state will end up costing the taxpayer more.

@dunkdemunder

Meh, there won't be that many. Most will stay in and parents who were planning on educating their children privately will in the most part change their spending plans accordingly.

I agree. It will mainly be people who were planning to go private who will now not choose to.
So more dc applying to the state schools.