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!

I came to that conclusion because ds1 went to the h8ghest ranked grammar school in our area (top 10 in country). It was full of dc from wealthy families, most of the dc were from private primary schools, although a decent percentage were there from state schools.

They would hold fundraisers (pta) which would raise £20,000 plus, I was on the pta so was involved as I had time not money. My other dc were out our local comprehensive with a totally different demographic. It has a greater proportion of students on pupil premium, students that don't want to be there, students with extra learning needs, students of all abilities. These parents struggled to give at fundraisers, they were too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table, a fundraiser would be lucky to reach four figures despite having more pupils.

I suspect that if the parents of private secondary school dc find they have to send their dc to a state secondary school, they would be supportive of fundraisers and contribute generously.

That fundraiser will be to the benefit of the aforementioned grammar school or a comprehensive in an exclusive catchment area though, won't it?

Inner city comps attended by children from the nearby council estate won't get a look in.

the parents and alumni of private schools are already giving to fundraisers, typically raising money for scholarships and bursaries, and typically raising around £150,000 each time. but the ecology of cause and effect for why they give is balanced around the fact that the school is a charity and is non profit making, but the parents are acknowledging their privilege at being able to send their children there and contributing towards enabling less privileged children to benefit is a way to process that privilege. I am not convinced that the same level of fundraising would be perpetuated either with the same kids at a free state school where there's no "bought privilege" to atone for, or with the kids at a non-charitable school where the charitable status had been overturned and there was therefore no further obligation to spread the benefit around, any more than anyone feels compelled to bung £200 towards a poor family getting a holiday every time they spend £2000 on their own holiday.

Have used private education. Now using state - through choice (house move).

The vast majority will easily be able to afford the VAT related rises. The figures that suggested 90,000 would leave the private sector are based on flawed thinking. It measured income and ignored assets.

Families will have a choice; keep child in school or maintain current lifestyle. Most will make sacrifices such as selling a property, renting out a holiday home or annex, cutting back to one luxury holiday a year, sell some shares, sell some gold, take some money out of the savings account, mother might have to get a job, cut down on outsourcing of cleaning, gardening etc. most won’t even need to do any of the above.

Out of our year of 40 - there are one or two that might have to make significant sacrifices. The rest wouldn’t even notice. Judging by the clothes and cars of the rest of the school then cutting down on those things would easily cover the increase. You don’t need the latest model car or designer clothes and if your child’s education is at stake then you will give them up.

Comparing those ‘sacrifices’ to the lives of the vast majority of people on the planet puts it into perspective.

Private schools are not charities and most of the parents we know using private Ed would agree with that. Many would feel it fair to pay VAT. Some would complain (like the ones who complained they couldn’t get their housework done by a cleaner during lockdown but they were the massively entitled few).

The argument about easing pressure in state schools is a misnomer. Without private education those parents would be campaigning for and supporting state schools to drive up standards.

Taking away charitable status and charging VAT will have zero impact on most people but would be fairer and raise public money. It’s a no brainer. Unless you are someone that does or will use private education - the privileged few (like me) and I support it.

FaazoHuyzeoSix

Fundraising is great but does nothing to tackle inequality and the causes of inequality. I’d rather the money be spread across the UK than funnelled to a slightly less privileged few.

Only a couple of posters have mentioned that VAT doesn't have to be set at 20% on school fees. It could be set at any rate the government wishes, such as 5% (as is charged on energy). VAT could also be charged only on the amount charged above average school spending (about £7000/year for secondary schools). Charging VAT on school fees was illegal under EU law, but we aren't in the EU now.

Other and immediate effects of removing charitable status are:

1. Charities only pay 20% of their business rates. Scotland has removed the 80% subsidy to private schools and England and Wales should follow their lead.
2. Bequests to charitable private schools are exempt from inheritance tax.
3. Gift aid can be claimed on donations to charitable private schools. It has been reported that Rishi Sunak donated £100,000 to his old school - Winchester college, who could claim a further £25,000 in gift aid from the taxpayer. Incidentally, Winchester College has "reserves" worth over £500,000 per pupil.

One interesting statistic is that fees for day pupils at the cheapest schools can be up to 40% less than the most expensive schools, and there is a very strong correlation between day fees and local gross disposable household income. This shows that private schools tend to charge what their client base will pay and it doesn't reflect the actual cost of education.

OP. No-one is proposing to abolish private schools.

One interesting statistic is that fees for day pupils at the cheapest schools can be up to 40% less than the most expensive schools, and there is a very strong correlation between day fees and local gross disposable household income. This shows that private schools tend to charge what their client base will pay and it doesn't reflect the actual cost of education.

That would suggest that the more expensive day schools are simply creaming off loads in profit instead of providing a fancier education than the cheaper schools?

I mean, I know Eton isn't a day school but I don't think it provides the same educational provision as a cheaper school.

If Starmer thinks reforming the House of Lords and tinkering with public/ private schools charitable tax exemptions is going to be key to doorstep conversations in the next General Election he needs to think again. Neither of these is central to most ordinary people's concerns (and he may lose a few swing votes from parents who feel hard done to though I think that's likely to be trivial). Labour can lose the next GE by not getting it's offer right.

They don't need to buy the buildings, C of E schools are mostly owned by the church.

There are other options, such as the National Trust or renting the buildings or well 100 other things.

It's not happening anyway so this is all speculation.

I'm sure you would prefer that but you are talking about people's private disposable income. or are you assuming punitive drastic tax increases at the same time as implementing this policy? my post was a response to pp theorizing that if people currently sending their kids to private schools were forced into the state sector that they would give generously to those schools. that's simply not going to happen. If a family can afford fees at £15kpa but can't afford a 20% hike such that they move to the state sector, they will find other ways to spend that money on their own children's education, not donate it to benefit everyone. a reduction of pupils in private schools would go with a massive boom in the market for weekend and school holiday tutorials services where those with the means can make up for the inadequacy of the state school provision and ensure their kids still have an edge over less wealthy peers.

There are other options, such as the National Trust or renting the buildings or well 100 other things

Sashh So if the private schools were to become state schools who would pay the rent to whom? Would the state rent them off the private school which no longer existed?
Also why would the National Trust get involved? Would the state school be open to the public as an example of a private school?

You may be right re just speculation but having seen the huge difficulty in our area to locate a suitable site I’d not be this relaxed about how easy it would be.

Also if you charge VAT on services you can also reclaim VAT on your costs. Has anyone included that in the sums?

FaazoHuyzeoSix

Entirely correct- but It’s like some posters are delusional!

Erm yes they’d
like random people to spend their disposable income on their child / lots of children rather than their own!!

Id like random strangers who have more disposable income than me to spend their money on my house extension rather than theirs, but that’s not happening either, however fairer that would seem to me 😂

Exactly. Keir Starmer wants them to be a available only for the very rich.

Yes the school would offset VAT it collects from VAT it pays, but i would imagine only a very very small portion of it. I think people are talking about the parents paying the VAT.

Good luck to any Labour voters with little kids or thinking about having children in the future or those with grandchildren.

If you thought school catchments were small before and house prices were out of reach, wait until you’ve seen sharp elbowed middle class mamas who pass on how to get through the entrance exams and interviews for exclusive private schools exclude you from your half decent secondary because they can spend more on a house and save the school fees so their kids can do the same 🤷🏼‍♀️

i have two children in independent school, one at a grammar. Definitely can’t afford a 20% hike in fees. If this happened my kids would have private tutors and we’d have plenty more holidays/ pay down the mortgage. We’d make it work!

Most of a school’s costs are paying its staff. VATable costs tend to be small by comparison.

But no, I wouldn’t be giving more of my hard earned post tax income to any school. It’s up to the government to fund the schools. Esp as they would be closing off independent schools to anyone but the very elite. My money will be spent on my children- just in a different way to before

YANBU ... also the removal of charitable status will not even the playing field, it will simply price out the middle and ensure that only the richest go to private schools.

Again, this aspect will disproportionately affect the cheaper/smaller independents. I haven’t read the legislation in great depth, but schools would be able to claim back VAT on capital expenditure, and might even be able to claim something on capital expenditure going back several years. The types of schools which have the greatest capital expenditure (think sports halls/pools/technology suites/science blocks) tend to be precisely the ones which Labour despise the most. They are the larger, more expensive schools. They’ll be able to claim back a hefty amount of VAT.

The Labour Party has proposed exactly this in the past. Proponents of this include the current Deputy Leader and Shadow Chancellor. They haven’t just changed their minds overnight. They’ve merely put Keir Starmer in his position to give the illusion of being a more Centre party. In reality, the hard left are still in the Labour Party with exactly the same views they had during Corbyn’s time.

One interesting statistic is that fees for day pupils at the cheapest schools can be up to 40% less than the most expensive schools, and there is a very strong correlation between day fees and local gross disposable household income. This shows that private schools tend to charge what their client base will pay and it doesn't reflect the actual cost of education.

How do you know the more expensive schools are spending exactly the same amount per pupil as the ones charging 40% less?

Into whose pocket does the 40% of pure profit you believe the more expensive schools are making go?

In case it's not obvious, I do not believe you have drawn correct conclusions from the available facts.