AIBU that VAT on school fees makes no economical sense?

[fuckwitery]

Trying to research what it costs the state to put a child through school each year. Figures I've found show between £6 - £8k. We pay £13k per DC per year. That's prep, so will be more for senior school. So at the mo introducing VAT on these fees would add £2,600 to the state coffers. £4k for senior school.

We, and lots of others who just about manage to pay for private schooling, will be forced to take their children out. Therefore it's a NET loss for the state?

Or am I missing something.

All our fair banding /lottery schools have sibling priority. I think they are a very fair way of allocating school places. In my city it is the norm to travel 30-45 minutes each way. That doesn't stop socialising as it's not primary school, nor does it affect after school activities why would it?

"IT leaves some children unable to socialise outside of school easily, and often not take part in extracurricular activities that operate outside of school and school bus times."

That shouldn't be a problem for private school parents- one of our neighbour has a two hour commute to his school!

No reason not to have a sibling rule in the system.

Not everywhere has good transport links - nor does everyone drive. School buses often don't include after school activities. You have to leave at the end of school and your parents pick up.

I can't as I work. I certainly wouldn't be able to facilitate school friendships needing a journey across town. It wouldn't happen. And I wouldn't let my 11 year old come home of an evening in the dark on her own across the city. (Buses don't run in the after tea here! )

Whereas my child, going to a local school, can call in her friends for half an hour in the way home and then wander back under her own steam.
It would be one if the things that would push me into using the private school!

You think of a better way to sort out the faith/selective/post code admissions disaster.

There is nothing "fair" about making DC travel longer distances to school than necessary.

So how are you going to solve the faith school/postcode lottery problem?

Because on every single private school thread the private school supporters say "the selection by postcode is a much bigger problem
And nobody seems to have an issue with that". So, I offer a solution. And apparantly that's not fair either.........

As I don't use state schools I've no problems with those suggestions. Also I would abolish all state funded religious schools and then the C of E, Catholics etc woudl have to decide if they wanted to go private or if the school would close or the buildings sold to the state (I think religious state schools own their own buildings so in that sense are part funded by the religion and part by the state).

I don't even have a problem with selection of most kinds so I don't mind it exists in the state sector either. I even pick my children's school partly on the basis they are single sex.

You can quite easily disallow selection on religious grounds by faith schools, while maintaining state funding.

I don't have a problem with selection on distance. It's good for the environment, good for children's friendships, good for community feel.

I don't believe that poorer results necessarily means a poor school, just perhaps less academic pupils. Mixing by ability just masks that in the headline rate.

I think that's true re masking actually; the school I went to had a catchment that included a fairly leafy, affluent MC suburb and two outlying villages/small towns - so it was fed by three primaries, one for each place. One of those towns was mainly affluent but with a council estate, the other was much poorer.

The whole way through school there was a pretty clear split in how the children who came from those three areas - a few exceptions of course but the vast majority of the top sets and high performers were from the MC suburb whereas most of the kids who did poorly, didn't stay on for 5th or 6th yr, etc, were from the outlying poor town or the council estate.

My current local high school is similar, it has a catchment made up from 3 primaries, two affluent MC areas and one very poor and although it's overall results are just above average it's actually split quite heavily according to where the kids are from.

I have to admit that I join the gang disagreeing with bertrand on fair banding / lottery.
The carbon footprint of adding miles to school travel is just wrong.

In Hampshire there are catchments
(and comps and sod all faith schools)

THe morning bus takes kids to school
the afternoon bus brings them home
the late bus does the loop at the end of after school activities
all council funded
The catchments are very odd shapes the maps are all online but are intended to create "mixed" schools.
I genuinely see no reason to change the Hampshire system, nor do the Chief Exec or the Leader (both of whom I know).

From my years of reading depressing threads on MN I have come to the conclusion that excess choice just leads to stress.

• academic selection
• religious selection
• sex selection

all lead to parents jumping through hoops that need not exist. And if the schools are more integrated and share resources, less is spent on back office.

The ares with the most private schools are the areas with the most state "choice" - or confusion

I agree, Talkin - choice just tends to add complexity in areas where there is no educational VA. Better to focus resources on schools themselves.

So how do we get rid of the "selection by postcode" people are always on about?

There are good arguments for having fixed catchments but with boundaries that are redrawn from time to time. Obviously geography makes this more feasible in some places than others.

Bertrand
If it truly existed I'd put effort into it.

But in areas with equal support for all schools (ie those with the least selection) its less of an issue.
FFS my local school is utter crap
but I, and all other minded parents, have overcome our "postcode lottery" through a nice simple distance based application form.

It's catchment school by default here - you can apply for an out of catchment place but it's far from guaranteed and many of the most popular/best schools take nobody out of catchment at all (as they're full of catchment kids). This means that the parents who are most interested tend to opt out of the poor local schools, especially at secondary level. They might not be able to secure a place at one of the best schools but there's normally somewhere, well, better!

I think the only way to do that is to improve the education each school offers. There will almost certainly always be a difference in results, but if interested parents could be confident that, even though the overall results at a school were poorer, their child would still get a good solid education and be able to thrive. That doesn't happen at the moment - things like behavioural issues being ignored, limited choice of courses, lack of setting (so not enough/any stretch or focus for the brighter kids) means that interested parents opt out and apply for places elsewhere. Which kind of creates a downward spiral.

statistically
its interesting
Bliar brought in "parental choice " the ability to apply for an out of catchment school
note that the USA has 100% strict catchments - the only way out is fee paying or home ed
but that exacerbated spirals
which was fine until Broon brought in Academies as a way of keeping failing schools open

and then Gove nadgered LEAs abilities to provide enough spaces (which is the true core of the problem in London)

My local school should never have been given the £16m
but now it has, so they cannot let the building close !!!

High use of private schools is proof of failings in the state system
the Kent Prep school situation demonstrates that with bells on

I will never be against fee paying schools as I truly believe they are a valid "release valve"
but their tax breaks should be limited

I think we already had the ability to apply for out of catchment up here pre Blair but Scotland has always been different. Still useless, just different useless

I do get where you're coming from re tax breaks but right now, state schools in many places are in no condition to absorb anyone extra.

Academies strike me as an utter shower of shit in most cases.

"Bliar brought in "parental choice " the ability to apply for an out of catchment school"

No, that's wrong. For England, anyhow (and other regions devolved, so I'm assuming England throughout).

• There is no 'choice' though parents can express a preference
• There are not catchments for every school
• Expressing preference for any school was brought in by the Thatcher government, though it had existed to a certain extent as some council areas offered it anyhow
• The Greenwich ruling, which was probably one of the most important in regulating how oversubscription criteria (including whether a catchment is fair) was in 1989
• The admissions code is reviewed periodically by governments of both shadesI

• Academies are their own admissions authorities, but so are VA schools and they always have been. Their introduction did not change the system as such, though it did put more schools into that category. They are all however bound by the AdmissionsCode

Read most of the thread.

I'm a state secondary teacher and I send my children to an independent school. My daughter started in a state school and was bullied for being bright, school ignored her SEN and it left her with anxiety and mental health issues. So we changed. I had to do this for my daughter and I am able to pay. I never intended to do this but really couldn't see any other option. We were given our third choice state school; I wanted to choose a place that suited my child.

If VAT is levied I will pay it; even if I have to take on an extra job, go without, then I will. I recognise not all families can do the same.

I also think that tuition fees are right: families that can afford to pay should, those who can't shouldn't. I have no idea which way I'll vote in the election but it won't be Tory, does that make me a hypocrite? I don't think so. Why should my children suffer because state education is woefully underfunded? They shouldn't, and neither should anyone else's.

On how to make it fair without polluting the environment with buses to the schools what about allocating housing based on family need an abolishg private ownership of housing (Cuba did this).Also China went further in its past - if your famly was academic, elite, rich, then you were sent to work in the countryside in manual labour to try to correct that massive advantage family brains, education or money gives you. Israel on kibbutizm took children from parents to be brought up in family houses so mothers did not have a second shift at home after work etc.

I would give every parent a voucher of £5k to spent and top as they like and ensure state provision around the country was non religious and either selective or not but not the current variations.

Reducing travel by any form of polluting transport ought to be a top priority.

Then home schooling rules I suppose..... and not living in the country if you go to school as that means more travel. The days when if you passed your 11+ your parents gave you a bicycle as a present (if they could afford it) were because those grammar scools often were not in walking distance I think.