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.

It is.

And I shouldn't have had to remove my child from the local state primary, but they did nothing about it.

If anyone wants to judge me for that they are more than welcome. I would do it again.

The Times is resporting on the drop of new enrollments at private schools.

Using the 2.7% figure - before even being elected Labour have added approximately an extra 14,966 students to over crowded schools in the state sector for an extra cost to the treasury of £1.18m.

Brilliant, well done! If Labour do get in then expect to see up to 20% of DC leaving private schools at a cost of 15-18 million. That means they won't be paying VAT but will be costing the taxpayer more.

Yet more amazing Labour economic thinking.

I wasn’t judging. Simply pointing out the shittiness in of the situation. Although the defensiveness of your posts might suggest that you are less at ease with your decisions than perhaps you’d like admit.

The far left are out in full force with anti faith, anti private, anti selection rhetoric. Oh the irony on trying to indoctrinate the rest of us into their kind of thinking, which of course is the “only truth” and completely non biased.
Most seemed to have forgotten that Blair essentially privatised state education a while back with the academy model.

All this tells me is that politicians still have far too much influence on education and schools if they can use it as a political football.
Good old boring Starmer flexing his muscles to show he is the man in the big bad fight against private schools. It is all rather risible. Bare chested Putin got on a horse to show what a man he is and here we have Sunak fighting inflatables and Starmer fighting a scarecrow wearing the Eton uniform, dishevelled hair et al.
Someone somewhere must have advised Starmer that this is good populism and the only way up.

Personally I am very pissed off that these muppets get paid to waste public finances in this way. They should get on with the actual job of running a country.

Following the policy modus operandi the next step for Starmer will be
getting rid of grammars
and taxing University education.

I’m sure @ChardonnaysBeastlyCat isnt happy at all that in order for her child to not be bullied she had to move them to private school.
Anyone sending their kids to state should expect their child to be in a safe environment as a basic minimum.

If we had grammars most of us wouldn’t be paying for private. The only reason grammars are so crazy now is because there aren’t enough of them. None at all in my city.

Does anyone know why? Is it technically possible for an academy to open a grammar?

I thought they had been done away with but they definitely still exist - I don’t understand why (I’m not British & have only ever lived here under the Tories).

Starmer is not going to go for more grammars if on principle Labour are against selective education.
Grammars are all about academic selection

although I appreciate that’s not the case now as there is so much private 11+ tutoring these days.

@UneTasse we could have got our eldest into a Grammar but still chose Private. The Grammar is single sex, hot-housed children. Bitching and bullying is rife. The Private offers a rounded education, much more sport on offer,

To add one of the main reasons we moved our older DD from her state primary was bullying. From Reception to Year 4. The same girl (who incidentally and thank god has gone to another private school after Primary is still bullying kids). When my DD left she started on others.

I saw a huge transformation in my DD when she moved to the Prep school. Yes it’s a struggle and we make sacrifices. But this is one thing I can do for her that my mill working father and mother would have dreamed of for us.

Well yes, that’s what parents pay for. Bit like the difference between going to Disneyworld or the local park. You pays your money and makes your choice.

If I come across as defensive then that's because you are asking faux naïve questions you know the answers to.

Anything else is a matter for me and my family.

But as a PP rightly pointed out I shouldn't have had to pay for a safe environment for my child, in addition to what I already contribute towards the state education system.

“Well yes, that’s what parents pay for. Bit like the difference between going to Disneyworld or the local park. You pays your money and makes your choice.”

Still there is a huge difference between Richmond, Hyde Park or Greenwich Park vs a littered park with local druggies, back alley deals, fierce dogs and regular stabbings. So they want to tax those going to Disney World but not those going to Richmond Park. I would prefer Richmond Park to Alton Towers any day. Or the Pier at Walton.
The whole point is it is not binary in reality. Just that the voting general public believes it is binary.

So bad

Entirely foreseen though

@EasternStandard not to mention the time lag between the added VAT and the time it gets to the state schools.
money collected september 1 will not be felt in the state sector for years to come. so initially the added students will simply be an added burden.
personally, i believe it will be students with SEN who will be pushed out of the way and foresee more permanent exclusions initially.
housing will most likely see the surge early on in the shift.
i wonder if there will be a few court challenges not on the VAT, but on the lack of grammar seats for those that are able in other regions?

What money 🤣🤣

Numbers don't seem to work here - 15,000 pupils x £5k pa per pupil = £75m? not £1.18m? if we assume it's for secondary only, so seven years from Y7 to completion A-levels it £0.5bn?

That's pretty impressive

@SluggyMuggy my 2 sons went to state school and have done very well. When my eldest was in year 6 we did visit one local private school, just out of curiosity. It had better facilities than the average state school, and better food, but the thing that stuck out for me on the visit was being told that they had recently replaced all their pianos with steinway grand pianos. My thought was - what a waste of (parents') money.

So, just because private school children have more money spent on them doesn't mean that it is being well spent.

Crazidood which school was this?

Kids in State schools do do well, no one is saying they they don’t, particularly if they have invested parents. People don’t always send their kids to Pvte school because they think their kids won’t do well in State schools. They just want better so pay for it.

No. I don’t know that bullying is generally dealt with better in private so don’t know how that’s a naive or false question on my part. You’re being quite assumptive there, and I think it’s ironic when we are discussing the topic of bullying.

This was not what you asked initially.

Does bullying not happen in private then?

This was your original question. Completely different in tone. So please lay off me with you unfounded accusations of my being defensive and assumptive.

Discussing bullying, indeed. No need for you to demonstrate this type of behaviour.

Regarding grammar schools, it is illegal to open new ones, but existing ones recently got some annexes through in Sevenoaks (Kent) x 2, brand new sites. Sevenoaks is Lib Dem at the moment. Kent, Bucks, Bexely, Sutton still have grammar schools - then there are some superselective grammars in Bromley and Essex which is otherwise comprehensive. Some of the superselectives in London that have no catchment - locals have been trying for years to make them more local (smaller catchment) without success. In some areas there are more grammar places for boys than girls and vice versa. I am only commenting on the South East here, obviously there are still some grammar areas in the rest of the country.

The point is that education in England right now is not binary, there is a huge mix of church, state catchment, single sex vs co ed, comprehensive, grammar (up to 25-30% type qualifying), superselective grammar (typically 1-5% qualifying etc), comps with aptitude tests, banding, comps with grammar streams. It is a very diverse picture and there is no way the incoming Labour Party under Starmer is going to be able to make it uniform. That ship sailed ages ago. So why the current focus on private schools which from my understanding are just as diverse as state education, from the all bells & whistles to the simple for children who simply NEED smaller classes and interventions in a calm environment.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/apr/30/tell-us-about-your-experience-of-living-near-a-large-independent-school

The point is that education in England right now is not binary, there is a huge mix of church, state catchment, single sex vs co ed, comprehensive, grammar (up to 25-30% type qualifying), superselective grammar (typically 1-5% qualifying etc), comps with aptitude tests, banding, comps with grammar streams. It is a very diverse picture and there is no way the incoming Labour Party under Starmer is going to be able to make it uniform. That ship sailed ages ago. So why the current focus on private schools which from my understanding are just as diverse as state education, from the all bells & whistles to the simple for children who simply NEED smaller classes and interventions in a calm environment.

They don't need to make the state sector uniform but they could level up the funding per pupil - but I don't think they will as that costs money and most goes mostly unnoticed.

Where as focus on private system plays well with some labour supporters but they think of Eton not the small local private or private catering SEN schools.