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

"though small private schools whose accounts are much smaller than the average state comp manage to provide these; why not in state? Because it’s a choicenot to."

Its statements like this that annoy people.

It is not a CHOICE for state schools not to provide these lessons, it simply isn't financially viable for schools to run such small classes. Small privates can afford to because they get a lot bigger budget per student, although, I'm wagering you'd be surprised at what small private schools actually can't offer due to the number of students.

"But does that mean we punish kids who are trying to access these with a bit of extra tax?"

Well this is hyperbole. No one is punishing these kids

And yes everyone who posts here has their own special reasons why their child should be exempt from this. Although I think we've finally put to bed the thing on income and sending students to private school.

“ due to the demographic of the kids “

What does that mean? You do realise that in real life young people have to learn to get on with all demographics of people.

@ChocolateFinger222

It means that her DD had to associate with the lumpen proletariat.

🙄 No it doesn’t. This is utter projection. It means they’re more ‘village’ and she’s got a lot of anxiety and afraid of a lot of people. Did you see the bit about her having anorexia (as a result of anxiety and her medical condition) and school refusing in her former state?

I am the one, who tried to get her back into state for 6th form ffs… and it wouldn’t be that school as it doesn’t cater for post 16. But she can’t cope.

@Mummyoflittledragon thank you. I am so much better now. I still have some very bad days but I am mostly getting on with it.

I am just genuinely grateful every day that my children are healthy. I think that sometimes people forget what a privilege it is to have a healthy child.

it sounds like you are being an amazing support for your DD. It must be so hard, especially with your own health issues. She is lucky to have you.

We have some outstanding comps and for some they are very good. Unfortunately like most schools however the sen provision is beyond woeful.
Even with a good Senco the teachers don't follow through what they advise, teachers generally don't understand sen at all..
They still don't often in a private school the difference being more accountability, more leverage and smaller classes.

It is a choice. If the DfE decided it was a priority schools would have to make it one. Years ago PE was underfunded: the DfE decided to direct more money to it and now it’s a priority for many state schools and lots is spent on PE (and PE teachers).

Many MATs (I’m a trustee of one) could easily afford language teachers to rotate around several schools - lots do with music, for example. Drama now gets a lot of resources in state schools: most have a drama teacher and offer theatre studies at GCSE and A-level — this wasn’t the case thirty years ago. Posters here seem to think that schools and school funding are like that were years ago in their youth: not the case.

Many state schools are now academies and often part of big MATs or consortia that are run as charities very like the private sector, some with hundreds of schools and Trust CEOs paid a large amount of money and they make choices about how to spend their funding across many schools, including tendering for private companies to run eg. catering, sometimes tendering nurseries on site to run as profit-making ventures, renting out sports fields and facilities to private companies, etc. etc. They are often run far more like large businesses than you would think - not at all like the local authority single schools of yesteryear that posters imagine when they write about “schools can’t afford” this and that.

@asterel

It certainly isn;t a choice, and whilst I'm no fan of MATs , I'm frankly horrified that someone that is a trustee thinks this.

You in fact prove me right with your point about PE, yes the DofE made PE a priority, and gave pots of money, that can't be spent elsewhere to fund PE. This doesn't mean its an individual school's choice to spend it over languages. It had to be spent on PE.

Most schools have a drama department because they can offer and fill GCSE drama ( not likely theatre studies) and which ever choice of A level they have. Since languages stopped being compulsory, that has become ever harder to do for most schools, meaning language teachers either double up on teaching 2nd languages, or are deployed to other subjects. As there are language teacher shortages they then migrate to other schools where they are used in faculty full time.

Do you provide for classes of 3? What do you take out instead.

Oh and that's before we get to equity. Why is Tom the History teacher paid exactly the same, and given exactly the same time to teach his A level class of 20, as Mike, who teaches Politics and who has a class of 5? Tom basically subsidises Mike because his subject is more popular.

You’re proving the point - if the DfE prioritised languages, schools would provide them. At the moment they prioritise subjects that are cheap and popular (eg. Drama). We could decide differently. We could make languages compulsory again. Ten years ago lots of state schools offered IB: now few do. And MATs and academies have a lot of additional choice over what they offer. These are all choices.

The way schools are funded and run now is very different to the way most posters imagine. Consider a secondary in a large MAT like United Learning, with a new building. Many of its staff and functions are bought in from private contractors (cleaning, maintenance, etc.) Their sports facilities are run by a private company which offers them to the public as a leisure club out of hours, so that the children can’t use them then. There’s a nursery on site which is leased to a private for-profit company. After school clubs and provision are outsourced to another for-profit company. Teachers in PE and minority subjects rotate around several nearby schools in the MAT, which runs its own practice-based PGCE across the Trust.

Now compare with a small individual prep school that is run by a small governing body. It has fees under 10k a year and few assets, apart from its one school site and playing fields, which it allows nearby state schools to use free or for a nominal fee as part of its charitable status. It offers 40 percent of students a means-tested bursary of a reduction of between 25 and 110 percent of fees. It employs all its staff direct and has a large pensions cost. It makes no surplus.

Which is more ideologically “deserving”? Which is more “state” and which more “private”? The situation these days is more complicated than most posters think of when they imagine the division between state and private sector.

But you made it out to be school's choice, not the DofE.

"Ten years ago lots of state schools offered IB: "

No they didn't, not in the state.

IB has major flaws too as students who are good all rounders do well, where as students who are very good in one or a few subjects but struggle in others do not. Neither system is perfect.

"Which is more ideologically “deserving”? Which is more “state” and which more “private”? The situation these days is more complicated than most posters think of when they imagine the division between state and private sector."

You are getting a bit confused here and creating points for your own ends.

The state is free at the point of service, the private is not, private school parents make a choice to privately educate, as a purchase this is something that should carry VAT.

It isn't about ideology.

Exactly. IB is easily available in the state system in our area. Didn’t suit any of my children re learning styles or what they wanted to do though. The Alevel focus was preferable.

I don’t think schools prioritise drama, its just it can be more popular. There is no point in students studying languages if they don’t want to and they won’t be useful.

@ChocolateFinger222

The point on languages, since the government made it not compulsory to take languages it is much harder to fund it for a school.

Even in state schools where the % who sit the EBac is relatively high at 70% ( this is much higher than national average) this still means that 30% of kids in year 10 and 11 don't take a language. That means languages get less funding than cores subjects.

At A level the take up is even lower, language classes often run at far lower numbers than would be allowed in social sciences or humanities ( a sore point for some). Therefore they cost far more to deliver per student.

If it’s not about ideology, why are you so pro a policy that will raise minimal revenue and possibly none? Why does the EU ban VAT on education? Why don’t most developed countries charge VAT on education? It’s pure ideology.

Lots and lots of state providers, including many of the large state VI firm colleges, were offering IB ten years ago - it was a big selling point for many VI form colleges, in fact. (Up to half of the state applicants to my university course were IB at one point.) After Gove, most state providers stopped offering it - though some still do. Importantly, languages are a key part of the IB.

To think if you can no longer afford school fees... 613 replies

TiredMumE · 13/06/2024 19:54
that is tough.

Yep and it will be even tougher for teachers and existing pupils who have to deal with more pupils in the state sector, as always it will be in the poorer areas that both children and teachers will suffer.

The politics of envy.

@squirrelnutkin10 ,

Well it won’t, will it? If a pupil has more pupils, the government will give it more money and it can employ more teachers.

Regardless of how many pupils move sectors, there will be the same numbers of pupils and the same number of teachers.

The reality will be that it will be tougher for teachers in private schools as they will save money by increasing class sizes, which they have room to do. In the state sector, on the other hand, they will keep classes to 30 and the finances will be a little better (which makes life easier for teachers in a number of ways) as the fixed costs (SLT, HR, buildings etc) will be spread over more pupils.

I am glad that overall you’re doing well. I agree it is a privilege to have a healthy child. My dd wasn’t always so affected by her medical condition so albeit it was in the background when little, it wasn’t such a worry as she was protected but adults. Now she has to safeguard herself more and more and it’s hard for her. I am trying my best for her thanks. X

You realise private schools have smaller classrooms to accommodate smaller number of pupils so not as simple as just saying make the classes bigger. It’s also why the schools that shut down will likely sit empty for a long time as there will be little demand for the buildings with educational use. I guess over time they will be bought up as bargains and converted to more flats.

the arguments on here are very simplistic from many people. I think a lot of the parents that move children out of private schools, and a lot of the schools that close will be the parents and schools dealing with pupils who are not typical private school children (ie not really as wealthy as a lot of people seem to think) - many of these will try to make homeschooling work rather than put their children into the big comps that were failing them.

its way too early to see how people will cope and what decisions they will make to do that - homeschooling groups so parents can continue working part time, giving up jobs and downsizing property, moving to state when it’s an option of course but undoubtedly the big impact will be that a private education moves back to be only for the super wealthy - does that mean we will start to see the highest ranks in industry filled by the old boys clubs? Who knows but not unlikely really - it’s like winding the clock backwards so not sure why we would expect a different outcome.

“we will start to see the highest ranks in industry filled by the old boys clubs? “

We already have that in all sectors hence parents overstretching themselves to pay for private education. The fact that these same parents think it’s ok when they are part of the club but not ok when they join the majority and expect support is ludicrous

I’m not saying it’s ok - I just mean that it becomes even more exclusive. Anyway it doesn’t matter because we all know labour is highly likely to win the election and they will not be changing their minds on this policy so instead of people getting nasty we just all need to work out what we are going to do.

No, they aren’t ‘awash’. There are 8 private schools within about 10 miles of me. A couple of oversubscribed outstanding state schools. Mostly special measures academies.

I know a few families with kids in the private schools. None are rich. 3 are paid for by grandparents. They will be leaving as grandparents can’t afford the extra cost for the length of time remaining. Another is on a sports bursary. Again he will be leaving so can kiss goodbye to the elite partnerships with international placements that his school could offer.

The other 2 are paid for by 8 figure salary absent dad. They will always live a life without wanting for anything. Mum is a nurse so if he starts pissing about with child support, which he has in the past, this will become a problem.

So no, not awash, but will be far fewer working class students in future.

This might not bother you but as a former teacher I know that the line that kids are resilient is a load of bullshit. They aren’t. Change is hard. This is going to damage their education.

But as long as the have nots get to stick it to the haves, that’s the most important thing.

@AllThePotatoesAreSinging

Ah mischaracterising the argument and using selective minority examples are really, really great ways of debating eh?

More carefully characterized stories to fit the narrative?

Just sharing personal experience. Obviously people I care about.

But isn't it funny that nobody knows anyone who is just going to pay the extra, who are by far the vast majority involved?

Also, I'm really sorry to say this, but anyone relying on grandparental help who would be unable to bridge a gap if circumstances changed was very much risking this anyway. Grandparents might die and have not made this a stipulation of a will, they may fall ill and need expensive care. There are actually a whole host of reasons why this sort of arrangement might not work out fully during a child's education.

It is unfortunate, and sad for the small minority of children it will impact, but no one is exempt from being impacted by government policies.

Apart from the kids with the rich dad in the post I tagged you in.

If I wasn’t clear in that post, their dad is a ridiculously high earner. They aren’t going to suffer at all as nothing will change for them. Like all the other kids from wealthy families.

That’s a lot of supposition. The grandparents had indeed factored in cost of school fees should they die before the children completed their education. They are more likely to die doing extreme sports than of old age by then! They are only in their 60s!

“ due to the demographic of the kids “

unless you’re filthy rich - and from the majority of the posts on MN apparently most private school kids are in fact just the offspring of ‘strivers’ and those who ‘sacrifice’- your children are in fact going to have to mix with normal people once they leave their ivory towers.

And not just as their staff, they will have to work ALONGSIDE non-privately educated people as their equal.

I realise this may send shivers of fear down the spines of ‘hardworking ‘ parents who have ‘prioritised’ their children’s education but unfortunately it is very likely that they will
mix with all demographics of children, eventually… so perhaps private school is not giving your speshal child the advantages you think?