To be annoyed at The Guardian largely because it is such a dump solution - private schools

[Dlwch276]

So as part of their recent excessive coverage of a book which attacked the private school system (written by someone who went to private school) The Guardian has suggested adding VAT to school fees.

Asides raising more money via tax i don't see how this would make the system fairer? From what I've seen the logic is that parents who are motivated to pay £20k+ on fees would force state schools to improve if their children attended them. Mumsnet is full of posters at their wits ends trying to affect change at their local state schools. No-one that I've met at our small private is wringing their hands that the local state schools are terrible and that this gives their children extra advantage.

Surely to improve educational equality either we all need to pay more tax to change class sizes or poorer students need better access to private education. In NZ private schools receive the same student allowance as state schools - wouldn't this be a better solution for students not able to access private education? For everyone to sit the entrance exam and then private schools to have to accept the student allowance as fees for those who can't afford it?

Like I said, yes of course we live in an unequal society. However, removing one tranche at least of this is a positive thing. And if we can't do that, then at least getting rid of tax breaks for people who benefit from it is another.

In fact I am slightly amazed that anyone who professes to care about inequality - which many of the posters on here say they do - would object to removing a tax break for those who benefit from an inequitable system.

Yes, there are other things that need to be done. We all know that. Does that mean that the tax break should then remain? It just seems an illogical position.

I believe that every school age child should have an age-rated voucher for education, irrespective of the tax paid by their parents, paid flat-rate across the UK to be taken to the school of their choice, be it private or maintained, senior or junior, religious/secular, SN or mainstream, selective or grammar, equivalent to the per capita rate spent on education via state funding BUT without altering the individual schools' admission criteria. If you want Eton and have a clever child, you pay the top up fee, which will be rather more accessible to everyone than the current £39K. It would enable the parents of the rich but dim to trade up socially, if they was the objective, while also enabling the parents who have produced a brilliant cuckoo to educate their child to the very best of the child's ability. Ideally, there would be quite a few fluid points in the programme so late developers could trade up to a better school, eg for A levels. You would NOT be able to carry forward unused years allowances. It would force schools to diversify what they are offering and there would be brilliant technical skills schools (of which there are few now) so acceptance to one would be a triumph for the right person, without penalising schools for the academic, or the undecided. Of course, it would never flatten the field totally; I'm not sure anything can because some people are clever and others are practical, but it might help smooth out some of the snobbery.

Contrary to the popular MN opinion, elite public schools are (now) very, very selective academically. Tim Nice But Dim won't cut the mustard .

Assad, the child of refugees, if exceptionally bright, might and even if he doesn't but makes a success of his life, then his children if they inherit his intelligence and drive might well qualify.

Lotteries etc. don't fix unequal state admissions.

The bigger point that there is NO school in say Knowsley that has good GCSE results whereas in say Bromley most do is not going to change. There are lots leafy affluent areas where the absence of cheap housing, jobs etc. means that school admissions aren't such an issue.

"would object to removing a tax break for those who benefit from an inequitable system"

AIR in Australia private schools are part funded by the state, so the fees can be very modest, though there are some pricey ones as well. Anyway, the premise that private schools are getting a break is one that many people may not accept in the first place.

It’s easy to say “let’s put VAT on fees” but it’s not thought through.

There are well over 100,000 kids in London who go to private schools. If just 20% are priced out by the imposition of VAT (probably a conservative estimate), that’s 20,000 extra kids that local councils will
be responsible for educating - it would require building at least 30 new schools in London alone. Where exactly are these schools going to be built? Who is going to pay for them to be built? And who is going to pay for their running costs and teachers’ London weighted pay? The VAT paid by the remaining children in private education isn’t nearly going to pay for it all, let alone investment in existing schools. It means even less money to go around the state education system.

Outside London, all that will happen is that instead of paying school fees, parents will simply buy houses near the better state schools. The better state schools will turn into quasi private schools, except the state is paying. How does that help?

I'm strongly anti private school for a whole host of reasons. Even if I was a multi-millionaire I wouldn't consider it. My son has acheived incredibly well academically and I am confident will go on to great things. No money needed! 😊

My daughter has ASC, she is educated in a mainstream private school after moving her from a state school.
None of you gleefully declaring how well your dc have done in the state sector seem to give a second thought to how dc like mine do. She is disadvantaged way more than most children.
Her school has supported her through so much, the state school kicked her out.
No one cares about children like mine, it’s unfair that we can pay but I am pretty sure my youngest would be dead by now had we not got her in to the private school.

There is a bit of nonsense that a fair playing field is going to transform educational outcomes. It's not. If you are averagely intelligent, and have a child with someone of equally average intelligence, then the likelihood of producing an Einstein is remote.The child will be exceptional for you, only because the child is yours. Like mine. Not brilliant, or exceptional, just (exceedingly) special to me.

Again, stickystick, you have just pulled that 20% figure out of your arse so the rest of what you say can be safely ignored.

Xingming of course it won't transform educational outcomes. Life outcomes though, it may make a small dent in.

I read recently that private schools in the U.K. educate 6.5% of children but employ 14% of the teacher workforce. Perhaps capping the number of teachers that private schools are allowed to employ, proportionate to the number of pupils they educate, would make provision between the state and private education sectors a bit more fair?

No, I don't think it can be ignored.

If there is a major price hike, how many parents wouid be priced out? It's a very valid question, and key to whether there will be political will to do this. Because a large exodus into the state sector could cause chaos, especially in areas where a lot of Dc are privately educated and the state schools don't have the capacity to take any/many more.

Even if the figure is lower - half that , say - you're still looking at the equivalent of 10 new large secondaries, or 8 secondaries and 4 primaries (or similar) which need sites and funding. It would be a very brave decision to go ahead without considering such scenarios.

Stickystick is making an important point @Handay. Not one that can be ignored. You can't magic even 5% out of funding from her specifed population out of the ether. The additional provision has to come from somewehere.

What is unfair is that FE and Sixth Form Colleges have to pay VAT.
I personally think Private Schools should too, as the present system is unfair.

But Labours policies seem to be aimed at making them unelectable- such as "removing the free market" in Higher Education. Or how to stop left leaning academics voting from you.

I really do not think that increasing the cost of private education would help.

I think private education needs to be regulated more closely so that private schools are not free to offer such a very different experience to state schools.

Teacher:pupil ratio control would lead to larger class sizes and fewer extra curriculars in private schools.

Can’t imagine the impact that this would have on somewhere like Edinburgh where 25% of pupils are privately educated. Where there is little capacity for the state to take on these pupils and definitely not the funding.

I also agree with previous posters that the state should not have a monopoly on education. Having observed my DC in the state system and the impact of the curriculum for excellence, the significant lowering of standards from my oldest to youngest, the state in Scotland is not fit to drive the education agenda (ime)

Contrary to what a op stated nearly everyone that I know in private education where I live in Scotland has tried the state system first and moved once they had given up banging their head against a brick wall to try and drive change.

Correction - contrary to what a ‘pp’ stated!

@MariaNovella. If mainstream education provides the same standard of teaching, then that's wonderful. But in reality, it doesn't. The educators who are top notch won't want to teach the also rans, because (a large part of) the excitement in teaching comes from trying to stretch yourself to teach kids who are cleverer than you. It's a big reason that state education falls short of its ambitions..

I hate the thought of legislation being introduced just out of spite!
Not one of these ideas discussed would improve state education...

Private schools are successful because they offer what the state can't. lets be honest here, who would not want an education equal to what Eton offers for their child.

Only very silly followers of the Corbyn scripture (who themselves have been privately educated) would disagree with wanting their children to be schooled with like minded children.

I have seen nothing but wotireckonry re any fall in private school numbers/rise in state school numbers. Private school fees have been rising hand over fist for the last twenty five years, yet the percentage accessing them has remained steady. These people are not making decisions based on cost.

Regulating private education is not about spite.

Private education in England has spiralled out of control to become a luxury good. That is socially divisive.

M

Exactly. It's blatantly about privilege. And ok fine, some people are richer than others. But don't give them or their vehicles of privilege frigging tax breaks ffs.

No, it wasn't based on cost, personally. We ended up paying for a repeat year of Y12 and Y13 because it was the only way we could give our child a decent stab at decent A level results. DC had had a single year at another very good school but the logistics were too much for us all. The option that remained to us turned out to be very inadequate. DC learned F all that wasn't taught during y7 and y8, and still turned in c grades at GCSE.