Nearly £9000 more spent on private secondary pupils than state pupils

[SluggyMuggy]

Research from University College London that found £12,200 a year is the average spending on a privately educated primary pupil, compared with £4,800 on a state pupil. For secondary, it’s £15,000 compared with £6,200.

This entrenches inequality as private pupils are given far more resources towards their education.

I believe in reducing inequality.
That needs to happen by making state schools better, not making private schools worse/non existant.

Excluding whatever fraction of the fees is going into unnecessarily luxurious sports facilities and contributing to a bursary system, the amounts for fees as charged by private schools is the real cost of providing a good standard of education without the desperate shortages and understaffing of the state sector. State schools should be getting around £10,000 to £12,000pa per pupil (with supplements for learning support and disadvantaged students on top of this). If that was achieved many private schools would go out of business due to lack of demand.

Doesn't need to be through income tax. A simple financial-transaction tax on investment trading could raise billions without affecting ordinary people at all.

@SluggyMuggy your heart is in the right plave but you haven't actually engaged with the real practical questions that many people have raised that make your ideas simply impossible to implement. Intelligent people develop their ideas through conversation to establish what is practical and viable rather than clinging to ideals and hyperbole about focusing on practical reality being tantamount to letting the poor starve.

Do you all ever listen to yourself?

What you are saying is that what you spend on private education has no real impact. What matters is engaged parents. And poor kids rarely have engaged parents, while rich parents nearly always have.

It is an incredibly bizarre argument to make and is at odds with all the research into education and social mobility.

I used to teach in an Asian country and private day schools weren’t much of a thing but private after school academies were. And the richer kids would all pile into those after school. That’s what will happen if private schools are ended.

Richer people and/or people who value education more will always use what resources they have to help their kids get ahead from nursery to university and beyond.

The amount of very average rich kids I know from both state and private schools who had parents that pulled stings and opened their purses to get them their first job or unpaid internships (which their parents funded) is astounding.

Well how do you think the state is funded? Where is the money meant to come from?

I am listening but I am more of a social democrat. So I have come to realise that old school Labour policies really ain’t my thing. I value choice and freedom and I am certainly not signing up to some old men and their backward philosophies so this Vat policy can go do one.

Of course the money spent has an impact - it's presumably why the parents spent it.

If they didn't spent it on private school fees it would likely be spent on tutors or getting in best catchment areas.

Inner London spends £8,860 per child in state school- actually according to this we are the lowest in Wales at £6,770.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/children-here-valued-less-elsewhere-28578825

My area teacher union says:

• Class sizes are too high and it's "commonplace" to see classes of 30 or more and "years of redundancy windows have left our schools with pupil-teacher ratios that are detrimental to progress."
• Children are being taught by unqualified teachers or cover supervisors for part of their provision. and "these colleagues, however esteemed, are no substitute for a qualified teacher."
• Many teachers are having to teach subjects they are not qualified to teach in order to save money and absorb cuts.
• School buildings are falling into disrepair.

I've said all this about my DC school and been told I was lying and state schools weren't that bad.

Despite that my kids have done good to great because we are engaged parents with no choice but to use state schools here. I'd love a much more level state sector rather than again bitching about small % that go private.

What matters is engaged parents. And poor kids rarely have engaged parents, while rich parents nearly always have.

Yes, what matters is engaged parents. The reason why working class immigrant children often do better educationally than working class white British children is for this very reason. Many of the immigrant families were well educated back in their home countries so they are more engaged despite having similar financial issues . Or they come from countries which value education and respect teachers more. Plus they may be more hungry for success having successfully emigrated to a “richer” nation.

Have you seen the difference in educational attainment between middle class kids in state schools and poorer kids in state schools??

It’s very obvious their home life matters, and to be fair it’s not always their parents fault they’re not engaged eg. If they have money and housing worries, literacy difficulties etc but the fact is - it has a MASSIVE impact and you’re on cloud cuckoo land if you think this isn’t the case.

Here’s an example : A childhood friend of mine from an uneducated working class background was telling me about how her oldest kid was struggling with a certain GCSE subject and had lost confidence etc.

If that was my (poor, single but educated and ambitious ) mum, she would’ve used her last pennies to get me some sort of tutoring help.

My friend, in contrast, who has more spare money than my mum ever did ( but prefers to spend it on the latest iPhones for all of her kids ) just kept reassuring her child that exams didn’t matter and she was fine without any of that.

I appreciate the reassurance it’s ok to fail and there’s more to life than exams,etc but it’s a shame she didn’t also take the opportunity to help build her child’s confidence and potential through boosting her skills.

I did advise her to look into tutoring but she just waved my suggestions off and said she herself had barely any qualifications.

She spends more time challenging teachers who she believes are being unfair to her teens more than anything else. She doesn’t value education and her children don’t either and lack ambition and direction.

Had her children been raised in another more educated family their educational attainment would’ve likely been markedly different.

David Blunkett has some interesting ideas. They may be more palatable to both left and right.

Had her children been raised in another more educated family their educational attainment would’ve been markedly different.

I think you could say the same about the school - if you've got a well resource school with philosophy all kids can and should do well home has less impact because less external support is needed.

Home support is vital at my DC school because there are so many teaching gaps and very little ambition for the kids from the school.

I do think my girls would have done slightly better at a different school. Certainly there would have been less pressure on us the parenst financially and time wise with support for all of them.

But we don’t let the poor starve. We already have free healthcare, free education and a benefits system to ensure that the poorest of people have their basic needs met.

After that it’s down to individuals to make what they want out of their lives, having been given the basic tools to do so.

You haven’t actually articulated much more than a specious argument that private school drives inequity, and further have said nothing concrete about what you would do to address it. Not sure what you are expecting in terms of dialogue if you refuse to engage substantively.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the disruptive kids in my DS's class who swear at teachers and throw chairs across the classroom are the same kids whose parents openly swear in the playground, intimidate teachers and declare 'they did ok with no qualifications'. I'd beg to differ to be honest but there you go. I'm well educated (state school) and have a string of academic qualifications. Damn right I am going to use my resources to ensure that my DC get the best opportunity for a good education. Because I have seen first hand what a good education provides

Interested to see that research. Please

This.

Communist countries treat their poor like dirt, they definitely don’t fix inequality.. it’s even more pronounced there!

Well that's the point isn't it?! We generally pay more tax and then pay for school fees on top of this. I keep on repeating this: if VAT makes fees unaffordable for us then I will give up work as my wage covers the fees. The government will then lose my VAT and income tax contribution but I will be much less stressed! Our spare money will go on private tutors and increased extra curricular activities.

I'm pleased you mentioned social mobility:
https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/04/01/wealth-inequality-where-in-europe-is-wealth-most-unfairly-distributed?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0mW6kwM0FX9PsQ6L4dTcWPc9n6nhDFzKLPb9zFSNe7-OOJQrmfoiQhc-A_aem_AdQx7p8047_LSE_H9V4mwtWaaz6QgDISf9RmD3ETjAuv88memDwBfy-SdulF1UAcDU-tvAMDG8zZ1yqHj7pYzpNS

Sad but true.

100%. The elite take most of the resources whilst whatever is left is shared out "equally" amongst the rest of the population.

OP, as a single mum, I have one child. He went to state primary and is now at an independent senior school on a 50% maths scholarship. He will do his A'levels there so it will cost me roughly £65k over 7 years.

The state school place he was offered was at a school that even Ofsted said wasn't safe. The trust was wound up the following year. No way was I sending a small nerdy August born child into the chaotic environment that was on offer.

So I had two choices. I could have moved house to be within the catchment of the only decent state school for miles around. A two bed house in catchment would have cost me an EXTRA £180,000.

Or I could pay £65k over 7 years for the independent place.

Actually I didn't have that choice because no-one was going to give me a £180,000 larger mortgage. So I've scrimped and gone without. No holidays, no nights out (literally), no subscriptions, no gym, no alcohol, very little spent on anything that wasn't absolutely essential (nails, clothes, takeaways) and I've managed it. Five years paid, two to go.

But hey, I guess you are happy with selection by expensive post code instead. So much more fair !! 🙄

Most state primaries in our area have therapy dogs.

And yes schools do need swimming pools. The fact we don’t have them as standard is so, so sad.

This is something I don’t think the Labour Party factored. A number of people I know are two doctor families. I know of at least two families that have said they’ll either cut their hours and go very part time or quit entirely. The second salary funding the school fees, but if none to pay then not necessary to work so long. Can cut to two days and pay the extras required and be there for the kids.

Labour really haven’t thought this through.

Doesn't need to be through income tax. A simple financial-transaction tax on investment trading could raise billions without affecting ordinary people at all.

Huh? I work in investing, there's already a transaction tax on trading (stamp duty) which is an anomaly to our peers btw and hasn't helped attract companies to list on the LSE.

Then there's capital gains tax on profits made on trading (which has been cut from £12k to £6k to £3k). And there's income tax on dividends paid from investments (also subject to a small allowance). If we're going indirect tax, the big trading platforms also pay corporation tax, VAT and NIC on their employees.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why trading isn't already taxed enough? And by the way, plenty of 'ordinary' people trade as a way of making some extra money and even more ordinary people have pensions that hold the money in investments (and yes, there was a tax raid on them too).

And incidentally OP, paying school fees is the only thing that keeps me working. I'm 60.

If I retire, my co. loses my skills. The govt loses the £15k per year I pay in tax plus they lose the tax on the £700k in business I won for my employer last year. This at a time when they are trying to encourage older workers to stay in their jobs.

Plus the govt would have to pay for a school place for my ds.

A stupid and badly thought out policy all round. Self defeating and dumb !

Many people don’t understand the basics of the situation and seem to forget that we are just one relatively small country competing ever more globally. It’s all too easy to say “tax the rich” and “tax the bankers” (and, quite frankly, lazy). What do people think will happen if we keep increasing taxes on these people? These are some of the most internationally mobile people. Why would they stay here if other countries are more attractive (both financially and otherwise)?