Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think that due to lack of state school places parents at private..

101 replies

PancakesAndMapleSyrup · 10/11/2013 22:40

Should be able to claim from the government the funding that they would receive for their child at a state school towards their fees? I am well aware that many people believe that private schools are for those with deep pockets but there are many parents who cannot afford to buy a house or rent more than a shed size property near a decent state school therefore approach an indie school, (bursary, no holidays ever, no external activities etc). If all indie schools were to close we would be right up shit street for places as there are a lack of them anyway as it is. So aibu?

OP posts:
Bettercallsaul1 · 11/11/2013 08:50

Oh, I don't think there's any chance of it happening - it would be the death of Cameron and his government! The Conservatives have flirted with this idea before but have always been forced to drop it.

WooWooOwl · 11/11/2013 08:59

I don't think there's much chance of it happening either, but I do think it would be fairer.

The government has a responsibility to provide an education for all children after all, even those whose parents can afford school fees.

MrsSteptoe · 11/11/2013 09:05

Isn't paying for state education partly about educating all those kids who will be your social worker, your doctor, your nurse, your grandchildren's teachers... about having educated people in the next generation and the advantage that will bring to you, and to your children? That's what I feel I am paying for, and paid for even when I didn't have kids. And I am hoping to join the ranks of private school fee payers from Sep-2014 (though at the rate DS is going, he won't pass any of the exams anyway. But that's a separate topic).

JackShit · 11/11/2013 09:05

You can afford to privately educate your child at a cost fee wise that equals my annual salary and yet you want the government to give you money that could be directed towards the genuinely needy?

Sorry...I need that one explaining.

Bettercallsaul1 · 11/11/2013 09:10

It is, without a doubt, the state's responsibility to provide a school place for every child. However, returning tax money to parents to enable them to buy a private school place is not the answer.

Tailtwister · 11/11/2013 09:24

What ShoreWhore said.

Also, people who don't have children still pay towards education. Should they not have to contribute if they don't use the service?

We privately educate but that is our choice. State schools should all be equal but sadly that isn't the case. Some people pay more for property to live in a good catchment, some go private and some have no choice due to economic circumstance. If money is to go anywhere it should be to the children who are currently being failed by their education through no fault of their own.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 11/11/2013 09:29

Right, so a parent applies for this rebate based on the fact that they felt they had to educate privately... and presumably you can't have it if you live somewhere with plenty of places in plenty of schools, right?

So then the parent says 'we have had to stump up £15k a year because there are literally no places anywhere we wanted them'

And the authorities or whoever say 'but there are places in an Ofsted rated 'good' school right near you.'

And the parent says 'well yes, but we felt that that school wasn't going to educate the whole child, and it's not about sector, it's about the school, and surely we all just do the best we can for our own child blah de blah'

So then if the rebate authorities give those parents money back, are they not saying that actually, no-one should have to go to that school: it's not good enough and it merits the finding of (say) £15k a year to be avoided... but if you haven't got £15k, you still have to go there and you get nothing back?

Makes no sense. Vouchers are a ludicrous idea - I think UKIP like them, but nobody else, and certainly nobody with a whiff of power, I don't think?

SuburbanRhonda · 11/11/2013 09:38

Yes of course YABU.

I'm amazed you even had to ask.

ReallyTired · 11/11/2013 09:44

Private schools have the option of becoming "free schools" if the parents don't like fees.

I feel the the government should take an opposite approach to what the OP is saying and be tougher on schools with charitiable status. Most private schools do little or nothing to benefit their local community. Offering education for a price is not a charitable act.

Many state school children are funded for as little as £3K per year. The VAT saving alone for many private schools is more than what the state might spend on a child in reception. (The the median funding for areas outside London with low levels of deprivation is £5,02 www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12175480) Not having to pay VAT or corporation tax is a massive discount for many private schools.

I would like to see private schools failing to meet their charitable obligations be complusorily purchased and turned into free schools. Prehaps the law needs to be clearer what constitutes a charity and what a school needs to do to meet its obligations.

GhoulWithADragonTattoo · 11/11/2013 09:54

YABU - the premise of this is wrong anyway. There are enough school places for the children that apply. There is the odd hot spot, in certain cities where a few children aren't allocated a space but this is very unusual and more than made up for for schools in other areas that still have spare spaces.

Hardly any parents send their child to private school because they had no state place. Many reject the state school place they have been given to go private because they think it's not good enough for their child. BUT that is not the same thing!

Tailtwister · 11/11/2013 10:00

They are being tough on private schools meeting their obligations for charitable status ReallyTired. There are a few schools near us who have been in trouble for this recently. I don't see what the point of compulsory purchase would be though. They should just have their status removed, the fees would go up and thinking of the schools concerned I doubt it would make much difference to the parents tbh. If they can afford to pay the fees as they stand, they would be able to absorb any increase. If all the pupils currently in private education where we live were to enter the state sector the system wouldn't be able to cope. 25% of children here attend private schools.

ReallyTired · 11/11/2013 10:07

". I don't see what the point of compulsory purchase would be though. They should just have their status removed, the fees would go up and thinking of the schools concerned I doubt it would make much difference to the parents tbh. "

If you wind up a charity then the school would be forced to sell its assets and donate them to a similar charity to what its orginal aims are. A big issue is that private schools cannot convert back into businesses. Legally the school would be obliged to sell its assests to the highest bidder. (typically a property developer) Potentially this could leave children without a school place at very short notice.

If the school would complusory converted into a state free school then it would safeguard the education of the children at that school. Or at least if the parents want a private school they have a civilised timeframe to find a place.

moldingsunbeams · 11/11/2013 10:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ReallyTired · 11/11/2013 10:16

The prep could become a free school. Plenty of private schools have already take that route.

Tailtwister · 11/11/2013 10:17

I didn't know that ReallyTired so thanks for the information. In that case a few private schools near us had better get their ducks in a row! I'm surprised they have let such an important thing slide tbh, especially as there is potentially so much at stake. Apparently they have been given some time to improve, so we shall have to wait and see!

LittlePeaPod · 11/11/2013 10:20

YABU Op

As a soon to be new parent, we have already registered our unborn DD at a preparatory school because its the best choice for us and we are inthe fortunate position to be ale to do this. We fully intend to send her and any future sibling to private schools. I think it would be very unreasonable and unfair for us to expect the government to fund a parenting choice we make. We have access to states schools if we so wish to use them but we are choosing to go private so we should pick up all the costs.

friday16 · 11/11/2013 10:26

Not having to pay VAT or corporation tax is a massive discount for many private schools.

I've never understood this argument (my hands are clean, as I have never either attended myself, nor sent my children to, anything other than state schools).

The government makes a massive profit from private education. The parents pay the same income and property tax as everyone else, but they don't consume a school place. Suppose for the sake of argument all private schools disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow morning. The state would need to provide an additional 8% of places, but would be receiving not a single penny of additional revenue. Indeed, government revenue would probably drop: the largest expense by far in education is salaries, and those salaries deliver income tax and national insurance, and the recipients of those salaries spend money which flows through the economy.

The most likely destination for the money currently spent on private education if it ceased to exist would either be paying down the parents' mortgages, being paid into the parents' pension schemes or being spent on (imported) cars and holidays (abroad): none of these things deliver much in the way of tax, nor does the money flow through the UK economy.

The VAT issue seems very confused. If the purpose is to dis-incentivise people from using private education, you need to explain where the money is going to come from to fund the extra state places. If the purpose is to raise more money for state education, you need to explain why people using private education would all be able to handle a 20% increase in fees. All it would take would be for one private education using parent in about six to decide to go state and you'd end up spending more (on additional state places) than you raise (by VAT on those that stay in private education).

I would like to see private schools failing to meet their charitable obligations be complusorily purchased and turned into free schools.

And the financial effect of that would be negative. Massively negative. Free schools are paid both capitation, on roughly the scale of maintained schools, and a contribution to their capital costs. And they don't charge fees. So the effect of nationalising a private school containing 500 children would be additional cost to the state of about two million per year (the capitation for the pupils), plus the capital cost of acquiring the asset, in exchange for not a penny of additional income. And the parents who are currently paying fees would spend the money on mortgages, pensions and holidays (see above) so the money would be lost to the UK economy, rather than the staff at the school paying tax on it and spending in the UK.

I understand the political objections to private education, although I think the cure of sequestration is rather too Stalinist to be justified by the disease of privilege. But dressing it up as "private education costs the state money" is just bollocks: the parents are paying the same tax, and are paying more on top which goes into the UK economy, while not consuming a school place. That's a massive net profit to the treasury and to the wider economy, however you dress it up.

WithRedWine · 11/11/2013 10:34

in what sense would such schools be 'private'????

they already get huge tax rebatea on.grounds of being 'charities'.

Add state funding into the mix & you're basically taking the piss out of anyone unlucky enough to send their kids to a bog-standard school.

blood-sucking super-rich parasites drainjng the lifeblood from the public purse...and coming back for more...

EdithWeston · 11/11/2013 10:38

Tuition fees (other than at certain specified types of crammer) are VAT exempt, so there would not be a hike in fees for pupils (or university students come to that as their tuition fees are VAT-free under same exemption). As VAT rules are set by EU, this is unlikely to change.

The saving on VAT on the VAT-able services the school purchases amounts to about £200 per pupil per year.

LittlePeaPod · 11/11/2013 10:39

blood-sucking super-rich parasites drainjng the lifeblood from the public purse...and coming back for more

Not bitter much! Hmm. I would say most of the people in a position to send their kids to private school also pay a huge amount of personal taxes to prop up the public purse.

grovel · 11/11/2013 10:42

We paid for DS's education and would not have wanted government help. We do still care about state education. We want a fair society, we want a well-educated workforce underpinning the economy and we don't want our DS to feel he has to pay for the education of his children if he ever has any.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 11/11/2013 10:44

withredwine - brave! I agree - obv we are both leafy comp catchment buying hypocrites with chips on our shoulders.... Wink

hardboiledpossum · 11/11/2013 10:49

yabvu and I say this as someone who will probably use private for secondary. I think more money should be put in state education not less.

WooWooOwl · 11/11/2013 10:50

blood-sucking super-rich parasites drainjng the lifeblood from the public purse...and coming back for more...

What a weird and nasty thing to say about parents who are just doing what they can for their own children in the same way as any other decent parent.

Swop the word rich for poor in that sentence and look at how it sounds. Pretty nasty isn't it, even when you consider the fact that the poor contribute less.

moldingsunbeams · 11/11/2013 10:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.