School dilemma - is the 20% increase going to happen?

[FredandAmy]

We have one Y7 DC at private school and a younger DC due to start school later this year. Both DC are dyslexic (youngest not yet officially diagnosed but obvious to me and nursery staff have raised it) and the private school has excellent learning support. It has been amazing for DC1.

Planned to send both private but now worried about the potential huge rise in fees when Labour wins the election next year. We can currently afford fees for both by making sacrifices but if two sets immediately rise by 20+% it would mean one would have to leave.

We have a good state school close by, and hopefully she’ll get a place there but I’m worried that the DC will resent not being treated equally. Also worried that DC will not receive the support they need.

Am I worrying unnecessarily? I don’t want to start her at the private school and have to pull her out when she’s settled, and then find the state school doesn’t have any places. Not sure what to do for the best.

@Blessedwithsunshine

I clearly said it would be different if wanted to abolish private schools. He isn't. I personally don't think it's a bad idea though, when services are universal and not two tiered, they're generally better and result in greater social cohesion. By the the way, Finland does not allow general education to be delivered privately - are you lumping Finland in with North Korea?

The Labour Party has plenty of members who think that private schools should be abolished. Whilst the leadership may have changed, the beliefs of some in the Labour Party haven’t.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-private-school-abolish-eton-vote-conference-corbyn-education-policy-a9115766.html?amp

@Postapocalypticcowgirl

I mentioned free schools - I was being a little facetious. It was in response to someone who felt that businesses that provided an elitist, exclusionary service should also be dependent on tax exemptions.

Thanks Hobbi but I think I am right in saying that is a quote from the Tory 2017 manifesto. They made a vague threat to review the position if there was not an increase in partnerships.

That's quite different from the suggestion that Labour would tie the imposition of VAT to those schools that have not developed those partnerships. I haven't seen that anywhere

Yes it's on page 50 of the 2017 Conservative manifesto - they had that odd policy of wanting independent schools and universities to sponsor academies

ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2017/localpdf/Conservatives.pdf

@Mia85

You're correct, my apologies, that was the Tory manifesto. My understanding was that Labour originally linked it to requiring genuine charitable activity. I must have dreamt it.

I always suspect this is hammered by tory HQ: someone is paid to troll mumsnet clutching their pearls and trying to scare us.

Labour have been against private school since before I were a lass. Still managed to get through the Blair and Brown years without doing anything about it.

I'd bank on there being bigger problems for Starmer to deal with than private education.

Thanks Hobbi, I think the issue of charitable status and VAT is so conflated in the reporting that it's really difficult to disentangle what is actually being proposed.

There wa a bit of a debate about it this weke hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-01-11/debates/125D89DC-8023-4EE7-B0D4-2915173BBD39/FairTaxationOfSchoolsAndEducationStandardsCommittee and they do seem to be saying that they will have some exemptions for specialist schools but the strong impression is that they've not yet thought about the details

@Mia85

I mean, the academy programme as it has manifested over the last decade is effectively privatisation of education for all, just one without the enrichment and resources of fee paying schools. We do SEN schools very well in this country when they are funded properly, it's a shame many can't access it and councils (who would love to build their own) have to fund the private system to meet children's needs.

Charity law was changed in the past - at a guess around 2008 - so that tehre had to be some public benefit. Previously things like being a contemplative nun who did no good works other than praying was "charitable". So was opera even if only attended by the rich. The change resulted in private schools who were very rich ones having to have more bursaries and strapped for cash ones at least having to let the general public use their grounds and that kind of thing. Those are changes have been place about 10 years + now.

As for what Labour might do the Financial Times suggested it may have to be a special new tax, a bit like a tax only on oil companies, rather than VAT on all education because the latter would mean on university fees and all sorts of other educational provision too. The new tax also I believe could not be on the boarding charge/element of a boarding school which is presumably at least half the fees as day schools are about half the price of boarding ones.

I would not panic just yet about what Labour will do but obviously keep lobbying MPs etc so that they realise the impact of 500,000 more children potentially dumped on the state school system.

In the past in the 70s the Government abolished the direct grant schools where some children paid and others were there free, Some of those schools had to go fully into the private sector and others went fully state school.

Yes it's easier for labour or anyone to focus on the naughty class issues rather than actually tackling proper issues that would enormously help children and then wider society like sorting out sen.

This is an interesting paper on the legal issues, especially on the proposal to remove charitable status, if anyone is interested www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/302886/Sloan%20Private%20Schools%20Paper%20for%20LQR%20AAM%20February%202021.pdf?sequence=3 I think that is likely to be so much more complex that they will just focus on the VAT issue, but 'end charitable status' is a more appealing soundbite than 'remove the VAT exemption for education' so they muddying the water.

Sorry OP, this is very far from your actual question.

Notonthestairs
Existing pupils (like Starmer) were not required pay to continue for their education when the school became private

They were for sixth form - it was reported in the Sunday Telegraph and the Times recently - the local council only funded up to age 16. Starmer's spokesperson said Starmer 'doesn't recall' how his sixth form place was funded but it 'definitely wasn't self-funded' - Starmer 'didn't deny' receiving a bursary. Of course, 'not self-funded' doesn't mean it wasn't part-funded by a bursary and part-funded by his parents/a relative.

Hobbi
Starmer only got a bursary in sixth form and his parents sent him to a state school

Starmer's parents obviously had to apply for the bursary and he benefitted from attending an independent sixth form alongside fee-paying students.

Class or equality of opportunity?

You could fo thar and SEND issues which is about equality...

The current government isn't doing either

Yes but you are not pretending to be something you are not, you can fight racism and still benefit from white privilege possibly - but you can’t pretend to be a different race. Same as Starmer plays down his connections to private schools, his millions in the banks and claims to know what working class people need - what’s it’s actually like - it’s fake as hell.

I don’t understand why on earth Labour continually appoint rich, privately educated, ‘elite’ white men? Do you?
They have 70 million people to choose from surely a true working class person with actual lives experience or poverty that has the intelligence and Stamina to represent the party is not that hard to find???

The truth is Labour is riddled with misogyny and hypocrisy. We see it in their erasure of women’s identities and rights, we see it in their embracing of trans movement without a thought for our safety. Not a single female leader has ever been appointed. It’s lip service, because they continue to appoint rich, old men from privileged backgrounds and live in Islington bubbles without the first idea of what it is like to be the working poor in Britain.

Until there is an element of honesty, authenticity and real drive for change rather than tinkering around the edges and pretending to be down with the kids they remain unelectable for a large majority of the population.

Nah mate this is hypocrisy:

”I would hope if labour do this, it's phased in. I know several life long labour voters who are going to vote blue if this is still on the agenda.”

😂😂 More taxes for thee, but not for me. Funny, I always thought red voters were for the greater good, not personal gain.

Sorry, but how has KS tried to present himself as something that he isn't? Can you provide direct quotes, please, of what you think he has said that misrepresents his background?

I'm not aware of him ever having played down the fact that he had access to a decent education. What has he actually said about this that you consider to have been misleading?

As for class background, I understand that his dad worked in a factory and his mum was a nurse who suffered from a chronic health condition. Doesn't sound particularly privileged to me. Are you suggesting that his father did not actually work in a factory after all? Or are you saying that the child of a factory worker has no right to claim that they grew up in a working class family?

I don't care about his personal fortune any more that I care about Rishi's. As long as they have legally earned their money and paid taxes on those earnings, good for them. Are you suggesting that, because KS has done well for himself, he no longer has a right to care about those who are less fortunate? Or is it simply that he is not allowed to say that he cares?

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves

You've nailed it. Tories are inherently selfish so I believe they're genuinely baffled when someone isn't. I believe the trope is 'evil cannot comprehend good.' They judge us all by their reprehensible standards.

Honestly I'd this the best you've got? He wasn't kicked out of school when it went private?

My position is that this policy is correct, on principle. I attended private school for some of my education. Which school I was sent to doesn't interfere with a point of principle.

State schools still support children with SEN.

Honestly, I think you're in an incredibly privileged position to be worrying about school fees. Food bank use is at its highest and people are sitting in cold houses because they can't afford to turn their heating on. We need a labour govt, and the proposed changes to private school status is the least of our worries.

See given the tories are a bunch of callous 🤬 who have destroyed not only countless lives but also our country, its international standing and economy I was really looking forward to voting them out at the next GE. Now I know it has the potential to ruin your ability to send your kids to private school I may have to think again 🙄.

Go and look at the state school (the tories have done their best to systematically underfund it but they'll be trying their best). It would be unfair imo to send them to different schools but they may not mind - speak to them about it. It could be an interesting social experiment if nothing else!

My sister went to a private school and i didnt. I never realised fees were involved until i was an adult. I was just told learning wise she didn't settle at my school so she went to another that suited her better (which was true, its the only reason). I never resented it, i just wished i had a sibling in my school like others did.
My cousins all went to private school (one only at secondary age, never minded about the primary school difference) because their parents believed it was a better education... They later realised you can't pay for good grades. My adult cousins now say they wish their parents saved the money towards a mortgage or something for them and they'd gone to the local good school.

What sort of free stuff? The private schools local to here don’t. (And my kids went to a private primary - they certainly didn’t, theirs was small with not a lot to offer tbf). The local public school lets people pay to use their facilities but I wouldn’t call that doing loads. They offer some bursaries - think usually a max of 20% - still completely unaffordable for most. I can’t think of how they offer the local community anything.

I think it will happen but not overnight. A sudden large increase in children needing state school places is the last thing the education system needs- where I live there are simply not enough school places for the children who live here, kids are being bussed for over an hour each way just to find a place.

I feel a large part of the left, and much of the press, likes to focus on private schools and who gets to go to Oxbridge as a proxy for what's wrong with the education system. In reality the problems and inequalities go far deeper than that and start at reception, if not before. It would be massively irresponsible of Labour to further banjax the system for something which is largely a gesture. We need a huge amount of additional funding and investment in training and supporting teachers and improving buildings and facilities. Once that's in place, we might have some hope of putting vat on school fees without causing chaos.

My local council has increased all of its fees and charges by 10% for 23/24. I would therefore expect a private school to increase its fees by at least 10%. Next the retail shop is increasing its prices by 8%. I hope you have budgeted for this. One reason why my kids didn’t go private as I couldn’t guarantee that they wouldn’t significantly increase the fees snd it would be devastating to move them.