Private school fees - act now for SEND!

Gambling is taxed.

You prove my point. Super wealthy won’t flinch at the increase but those who can only just afford it will now be priced out. I have sympathy for any child who is upset at moving schools- rich or poor. There is a massive range in private schools. Some near me are 9 k a year and others are nearer 20k. It would be much fairer to say that the policy applies to all those starting private school then people can cut their cloth accordingly knowing what they are signing up for or not apply to private school at all.

Fees for private education are more than many people earn, if you’re after security assuming you’ll always be in a position to pay them is a huge risk. Anything can happen. Many people won’t need to remove their kids as being wealthy they’ll be more than capable of paying an extra £300 a month. Those that do need to move their children, it’s on them. Plenty of children have to and do move school within the state sector . It’s not a calamity.

In its proposed form it is. People have made a decision on their child’s education assuming fees would rise year on year, but not by 20%! This means they will have to remove their child from the school. I really feel sorry for children who will have to leave their school and friends because of this. Children on bursaries finding out it’s not going to continue- unfair. No other country in Europe does this and if we were still in the EU they wouldn’t be allowed to do it. It’s not fair that people who save the state money are being charged more. Now I’m quite happy to debate the ethics of having a private education system but this is just a nasty dig at private schools. The revenue created is going to have very little impact on state schools. Why aren’t they taxing private health care? Who is gambling not taxed?

This policy is not unfair .

I care and my kids are state educated. Nobody in my family has been to private school - cousins, nephews, nieces, in- laws etc. I can see though that this policy is unfair. I am not wealthy and can’t afford private education.

What a foolish comment. Someone doing what they can to help their kid and you call them out with this nonsense. Grow up

How do you know they didn't care about the gap before?

I'm not the only state school teacher whose child went to a private primary, in large part because I needed to be absolutely sure I could get wraparound and holiday club.

The only people who care about the gap widening are those who previously were on the right side of the gap and now aren’t. They didn’t care about the gap before but now they do when there kids are no longer the privileged few.

This policy will make private school very much only for the super wealthy. Those who scrimp and save won’t be able to afford a massive hike in fees all in one go. Schools will also cut bursaries to absorb some of the hit. This policy will actually widen the gap.

@Circe7 I think you are right on the figures (I am one of those parents who could afford it but chooses not to), but no matter how you slice it, private education without very significant scholarships - most of which will be unavailable in the situations we're discussing - is going to be out of reach for the vast majority of families in the country.

Most families absolutely can’t affford £18k in school fees.

It’s not unavailable to 93% though. There are plenty of parents who can afford private who chose not to. And the 7% in private school is at any one time- children might start in state and move to private later so far more than 7% spend some time at private school.

And in the context of child with SEN who aren’t well supported at mainstream parents who would never normally have considered private will consider it even if it means remortgaging their house or working longer hours or going without things. Just like other parents might work fewer hours in order to support children with SEN.

So I take the point that many parents could never afford private but it’s not the preserve of only the wealthy in this context.

I understand your point of view, @Frowningprovidence - thanks for your thoughtful responses and I hope your kids (perhaps now grown up) are doing well.

I still don't understand why so many posters can't seem to understand that we can lobby for more than one thing at a time. As a parent in the exact scenario the OP is on about, yes I will advocate for the best interests of my children, of course I will. However, I am also capable of lobbying for wider and wholesale change of the approach to SEN and CAMHS. My point, made repeatedly, is that this particular policy will not help solve the wider issue, not at all. If anyone can show me factual evidence as to how my children leaving their school and joining a mainstream will have a positive impact on the mainstream SEN, I'll listen. And please don't say its the sway or pressure I will somehow magically place on the governance of the state school or the LA. I'm very ordinary and certainly no more influential than the thousands of others parents already struggling with this.

I guess I just have a different view. My SEND journey has left me bitter. It's also left me fighting for better send provision for all children. I do lots in this area.

I'm just totally not fussed if those particular parents want to do this. Even though they aren't me and it doesn't affect me.

I'm still of the view that MPs hearing that some people felt that they couldn't get support for sen and felt forced to pay for it, might shine a light on the children who can't pay for it too. Because if an MP also thinks 'what about those children who can't pay' they are acknowledging the problem rather that saying 'state is fine, it's your choice to do this"

I don't @BarryCantSwim - I voted labour in the end but my main concern is that labour are going to close more special places to save money at council level. No defence of the pre election state of it! Just that vigilance is needed due to the funding crisis.

Because as pp pointed out, SEN is not really a united group of parents and children that govt particularly wants votes from.

I want all children with SEND to get good education - not just those with parents who are wealthy enough to pay for it.

So I wont be signing.

Exempt ALL DC with SEN? Yeah that'll work 😂

i don’t think that is the point @Welshwabbit - it is absurd that some families with a SEN child have to now contribute towards my privileged state school NT kids?

What other example do we have of someone rejecting a free service and for the pleasure of doing so, then having to pay for another service plus a penalty uplift at 20 per cent for not accepting the free service? If the rejection of the free service was because it was not fit for purpose for the child in question, then surely the penalty is immoral?
And there is no other example worldwide of a country doing this to this extent and successfully so.

I would have thought it is surely a good idea to exempt all DC with SEN who wouldn’t thrive in state. If you look at other countries with very successful state systems that is what happens- vast majority of kids go state and do well unless they really need that extra help for which it becomes worth paying for (if the parents can). It is exactly what the private sector could do best, but may just need a bit more regulation? Or are people worried incentivising this will offload the liability on the state?
I don’t think the answer is clear cut either way.

But this is a public messageboard (called AIBU!), and I don't see why those who say actually I think you should be lobbying for better provision for all SEND children, rather than a loophole which will benefit only a very small number, should be described as bitter. I don't think those who are disappointed that the provision they've made for their child that might* now be taken out of their reach should be described as bitter either. But can you not see how those with SEND kids who fall in the former category might see this thread as a little provocative?

*who knows, because as yet we don't know precisely how the legislation will be drafted, or how the schools will choose to deal with it...

My view was that OP didn't ask the general public to lobby their MP. They asked parents impacted by the proposed changes to do it. Specifically parents of children with sen who hadn't coped in their state school and moved to private.

It does feel a bit off/bitter to come and say 'no I won't lobby you are really rich' rather than just leave them to it.

If you are someone whose child has been failed in mainstream and who has paid for an alternative and you are saying 'no, I appreciate my good luck and am happy to pay more tax so i wont be lobbying' its fine to say so robustly. But otherwise people are railing against something they were never asked to do.

We’re what, a week in?

Under Tories school funding has seen the worst crisis in education history, including closure of special schools. Add on reduction in all the support agencies such as childrens services, EdPsych, social workers, youth workers etc.

Intrigued what you think was an any way an adequate strategy previously?

I have to confess I've never understood this "bitter" argument, in this context.

Why are:

those who don't wish to lobby their MPs on behalf of a very small segment of society who - up to this point - have been fortunate enough to be able to afford educational provision which is unavailable to 93% of the population "bitter",

whereas:

those who are angry that the provision from which they have benefited for many years may now only be available to those who are richer than them,

not?