To think abolishing private schools would cost the tax payer a lot of money?!

[bumblybum]

I am not against the idea at all but there's a few things I don't understand.

How do the dc currently in private schools fit into schools in areas where all the schools are already full?
Would private schools be open to foreign dc only seeing as a lot of students at the private schools are not from the U.K. and use private schools because their company often pays for their fees or would foreign dc also be forced into state schools?
What about boarding schools for forces parents? Are there enough state boarding schools?

Do grammar schools also need deconstructing as well in order for all education to be 'fair'? I live in a grammar area and you can forget buying a house in one of the school catchment areas unless you're already a lot wealthier. Is that not a similar problem? One school has 2% of pupils eligible for pupil premium for example.

Just wondering how it would work. Do state teachers want this to happen? Many move over to private schools so I suppose if many private schools shut down it would stop some choice in where to work.

Would state schools attempt to reach the standard of facilities that private schools have or would we accept that it is better that all British dc have the 'same' even if it's worse vs some having better facilities simply down to money.
Just Monday morning day dreaming about this really!

Precisely. A lot of people who are claiming that they don’t like the private sector are the same people who play the state education game. Those who go to church just to get a tick in a box so they can go to a sought after faith school. Those who move house at great expense so they are in a catchment of an “outstanding” school. Those who just pay to rent a small house or flat for a few months so they are in the catchment of a grammar school. Those who pay tutors for years to ensure that their child passes the 11plus. Is that fair? No, of course it isn’t, but people aren’t suggesting we change that system. The only “fair” way is to have a random lottery to allocate state school places. I wonder how many people would like that.

And it’s not party policy. I very much doubt the membership is the same anyway given that the party’s moved to the right since Corbyn’s day.

We live in a capitalist society.
Buying privilege will always happen to some extent.
Tbh if I had the money and if my dc’s local school was failing or had disruptive pupils then of course I would send them to a private school.
However I am firmly of the belief that in a decent state school an academic dc will do well, a not very bright dc will do their best but an average dc will benefit more from private education getting the push they need.
My dc went to a very good state school. The school like so many fawned over gifted dc and bent over backwards for deprived or disruptive dc.
Average dc as always were unrecognised , unrewarded and their efforts and good behaviour taken for granted.

Ideally if you were doing this you would do it alongside a program of school building in areas where this is needed. The Free Schools program took away the ability of LAs to look at their area and make decisions of "Well, there's been a whole lot of babies born this year, guess we'll need a lot of schools building in 4 years time" and moved it to a situation where new schools needed a sponsor regardless of local need. This is behind a lot of the current problems. Yes, fixing this will cost money but fixing other people's fuckups often does.

Also whilst it might cost money overall it will benefit individual schools greatly. Schools get a fixed cost per child, which makes sense except not all school costs are per child. Whether the school has 95 or 120 pupils the hole in the roof still needs fixing. Whether the class has 15 or 25 pupils it still needs light and heating. This causes big problems in more rural areas where classes tend to be smaller (and not full) because those costs can't be shared out. Add in that rich people like having a lovely leafy house in the country and if a lot of them are sending their kids to private school that tiny local school is more likely to go bust and shut down, meaning the kids who can't afford private school need to go further.

I think if they hike up the VAT too quickly, they will have a problem in the short term. Smaller private schools would close, more kids in state sector, only some teachers would transfer from private to state. This would result in larger class sizes and even greater recruitment problem for state school teachers (there is already an issue) and probably more state school teachers would retire or switch profession as they would be asked to teach and mark for more pupils.

property prices in catchment areas of outstanding and grammar schools would skyrocket. There would be a more lucrative gcse, a level and 11+ tutition industry - which would be alternative employment for teachers - who feel that they are not adequately supported in the state sector.

Also I'd point out to the people wailing over this that the Tory party aren't exactly helping private schools either right now.

Unless I'm very much mistaken private schools, as businesses, do not benefit from the domestic lockdown of energy prices. They're suffering the same way nonprivate schools are but whereas if your local school goes bust there's a process for that (which we're likely to start seeing shortly) if a private school goes bust it's just.. bust. If it's very lucky it might apply to become a free school (had a local one do that a few years ago) but otherwise, so long and thanks for all the fish and we're not open next week or ever again.

Add in the cost of living crisis which is likely to see parents needing to withdraw pupils and I grimly expect a flood of closures in the new year which will lead to a lot of panicked parents trying to find places. Frankly, by the time there's a Labour government numbers might have dropped to the point that this question is academic.

If they were going to introduce it it would be more reasonable if they did it say 5% a year until the full rate is charged. Another possibility would be for new pupils only to lessen the disruption.

Can't help feeling though that this would be the start of a greater attack by Labour on the public school sector. It's the thin end of the wedge basically.

I can’t see this ever happening, I have personally been on the rough end of trying to secure a state school place after private school. DS was utterly utterly miserable and it had taken a term to finally get him a state school place and I have been chasing constantly since September 1st. He only has a place as the fair access to education team stepped in and forced our catchment school to go over capacity and take him. It has been an utter nightmare and there is no way the state sector can accommodate all of the children in private schools.

This is likely the outcome plus damage to private sector all round

In many cases it’s not so much funding but selection. We use a comp that is effectively selection by house price and the results are excellent. Then grammar schools don’t get extra funding but even better results due to entry system.

State could benefit from some more funding for various issues but it doesn’t need private school level. We can see that with our state.

This policy will make state even more competitive, people must be outside the competitive areas to not see this downside.

Op raises very relevant point that grammar schools also need deconstruction.
Why should taxpayers fund certain schools, that the majority of kids aren’t allowed to attend , due to a flawed test taken in an hour some morning the kids are 10?

I say that as parent of a grammar school student

@GasPanic - true that they should probably do a gradual increase in vat if they are going to do it. AND this would give them more time to fund and improve the system to attract and retain teachers.

BUT I still think the effect of fuelling house prices in catchment areas and the tuition industry will happen. The only fair way of school allocation is by lottery. And even then, there remain issues of urban vs rural and how to manage sibling groups - particularly problematic at primary (school drop off).

Blossomtoes · Today 10:39
Did you miss that the link’s more than two years old and the Labour Party isn’t longer led by Corbyn. It’s about as relevant as quoting Attlee.

Fair enough - as you say, Starmer is less extreme than Corbyn. Nonetheless I bet there are plenty of Labour MPs and those who will fight Conservative held seats at the next election who would like to see private education abolished.
Presumably rather than abolishing it outright they will fight a war of attrition, bringing in laws and rules and regulations which will gradually make it harder and harder to run a private school until it becomes impossible.

Ultimately you will never stop people sending their kids to private schools. Even if the system were abolished in the UK a lot of people would just send their kids abroad. The cost of travel tickets is small compared with the cost of the fees. In fact some of the fees might actually be cheaper and the UK isn't the only place in the world to have good public schools. Attempting to destroy the UK public education system is pointless, all it will do is drive a lot of that business abroad.

Firstly, no we can never allow the right to independent schooling to be abolished. To hand total control over formal school education, and the employment of hundreds of thousands of education professionals, to the government would be a terrible terrible idea.

Secondly, can anybody actually explain how we would all benefit from removing the charitable status?

Driving costs up will mean fewer kids go and need educating by the state. It would just leave a smaller independent sector even more elitist for the wealthiest of the wealthy. How much additional tax could be raised? How far would that go towards paying for the additional load, and improving things for all state educated children?

Who’s really going to benefit out of this policy other than the elite (who can thank Labour for pulling the drawbridge up for them), and the Labour party winning votes for a policy they're probably not going to follow through on (again)?

I think you’re right @Andante57. It would take a very long time though, much longer than two or three terms in office.

According to reports at the time, Angela Rayner, the current deputy leader, backed the move. Has she suddenly changed her mind?

www.ft.com/content/33d09a76-dd63-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

Rachel Reeves, the current Shadow Chancellor, called for them to be banned. Has she changed her mind too?

twitter.com/rachelreevesmp/status/1092466518644977664?lang=en-GB

The Labour Party has chosen Keir Starmer to give the illusion that they are a more centre party now. The reality is that even members of the shadow cabinet have beliefs which sit much further to the Left.

It would also damage UKs private school industry. a U.K. secondary (private) education used to be v sought after in many parts of the world.

you can argue that the value of this sector is small; but I have certainly known families to buy/rent houses/relocate to U.K. to support their kids studying at school here. If they didn’t do this, they would hire professional guardian services. These kids would take gcses/A levels and go to U.K. universities. U.K. qualifications (marked by U.K. exam boards) are also fairly commonly used in overseas international schools - with the idea that students could transfer to U.K. private 6th forms and universities - so the effect on these sectors (and revenue generated) should also be taken into account.

I agree it isn’t really fair that private schools don’t have vat. BUT we should also consider the true cost and consequences of pursuing such a policy.

💯%!

Agree. It’s an asset for U.K., one which is repeated or modelled on in other parts of the world. Taking envy and votes out of it what other sector that has that kind of attraction would you damage with 20% extra

My LA pay DSs independent school fees and those of many other children. Surely if the prices rise as VAT will need to be paid then there will be even less money to be spent on education overall.

Why would the money people pay for private schools go in to the state sector? It is their money not taxpayer's money? In fact it will cost the taxpayer more to pay for the increase in pupils if private schools were abolished.
Not that that will happen. But if they don't have charitable status, they will presumably have no obligation to provide use of facilities, summer schools, bursaries etc.

Why would the money people pay for private schools go in to the state sector?

This. Litlealligator why do you think parents would give school fees money to state schools? Or maybe you think if they can afford it they should be forced to.
Good luck with that.

Could we please go back to removing badly behaved kids from mainstream education? There seems to be no comeback whatsoever from bad / disruptive behaviour in the classroom just now, and the standard of education those in the state sector receive is harmed because of it (as well as the enthusiasm teachers have for their job). Even if they only excluded a couple of kids a year, the threat of exclusion might help stop kids from playing up. It would make a massive difference to the standard of (state) education my kids receive.

Then there’s schools like The Oratory - the Catholic state secondary where the Blair children went. Again the demographic bears no resemblance to your average comp due to all the entry requirements.

@minipie What is this demographic you are talking about? Despite it being known as the Blair boy's school (he left about 20 years ago) most of the pupils are of ordinary backgrounds. The entry requirements are being a Catholic boy which is reasonable for a Catholic boys' school.

There are a lot of what would be described as working class Catholic families living in the catchment area.

I know three people who went to the Oratory. Boys from working class families living in very ordinary flats about two miles from school. You are aware there are still lots of ordinary people living in central London?

All Londoners. One of Irish origin, one of Welsh and the third of Portuguese. All were Catholic and regular church attendees. Actual real church attendees, not people who found religion in order to get into a good school. Many of the other boys are of African origin also from working class families who are also Catholic.

They missed the Blair boy but the son of two Labour MPs was in their class. His mum was Labour royalty but his dad was of humbler origins. Their son was privileged but Catholic and lived in the catchment. Under the circumstances I think it was acceptable to let him in.

People certainly wouldn't donate the money they spent on fees to the state sector.

But I'd imagine taxes would rise, and state schools would suddenly find themselves with extra cash if every politicians and company leaders kids were in state schools.

What do you mean Josephine's education is being disrupted because the teacher is spending so much time with wee Jonny with SEN and there no SEN provision for wee Jonny?

Money would suddenly become available. But it's a dream world. Never going to happen.