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!

This shows that private schools tend to charge what their client base will pay and it doesn't reflect the actual cost of education.

So "the actual cost of education" is a fixed amount, so a state school with £5000 per pupil can actually provide exactly as good an education as Eton?

Well I must say this is a much more balanced thread that the one linked earlier. I think that OP used some very inflammatory language which attracted some disgusting comments from posters.

I too would like to see the accurate figures, the 90k private school pupils has apparently been debunked, but I don't think anyone knows for sure the numbers that could potentially make the move from private to state.
A 23% increase already, now a proposed 20% increase along with the cost of living crisis, everyone will have a cut off point which will differ but obviously those in the middle are the ones who will loose out, not the elite, super wealthy.
6k new teachers, who is paying for those? Where are they coming from?

This is a poorly thought out idea, and I do think it's politics of envy that won't produce the desired results.

6k new teachers, who is paying for those? Where are they coming from?

Goodness knows. Also private schools don’t necessarily insist on a teacher training qualification though the teachers will have a degree in whatever subject they are teaching.
So those private school teachers without a QTS will not be able to transfer to state schools.

@purpleboy what inflammatory language have I used? I genuinely intended on finding a balanced answer on here.

6k new teachers? Well that sounds a wise move

Op agree with pp the other threads linked below were a shambles yours is much better

Oh sorry not you op, the op in the other private school thread that a poster linked to earlier.

I think you've asked great questions and have done it respectfully so you've received genuine respectful answers. The other thread is horrible to read.

Yes I made a mistake bothering with that thread. Not the second though thankfully

There's no point recruiting 6000 new teachers if they can't keep them. Retention is an enormous problem. I don't think most private school teachers would move to state - double the class sizes, far more behavioural issues and considerably less freedom in what and how to teach. Teachers in the state system are leaving in droves and sinking the small independents isn't going to help address the huge problems the Tories have caused in education. I find this so frustrating - education so desperately, desperately needs resources and funding and support for students with SEN and mental health problems but Labour's suggestion is one that will leave the elite untouched and increase pressure on everybody else, in a time where so many are buckling already.

but Labour's suggestion is one that will leave the elite untouched and increase pressure on everybody else, in a time where so many are buckling already.

Yes. It seems unLabourlike to want to leave the very rich unaffected.

I am out of this now as children are grown up but my comments are:

1. Where will all the kids whose parents cannot afford the fees go? Are those schools ready to take even more pupils?
2. Not everyone bar the international pupils whose money has often come from goodness knows where can take increase after increase
3. The parents with the sharp elbows will go for a good state school and move house resulting in higher house prices making the said school almost impossible to get into
4. The top private schools will then become the destination for Far Eastern Princes, Russian millionaires, and countries with 'dirty' money.

Is that what the UK want?

Also, watch this space. Lets see when the media trawl through where all the Labour MP's send their children? The most disgusting one was Abbott but there will be others.

This is going to take years and years to show any difference and it will become worse and worse as people use money to buy into the better areas.

Nobody really knows the number of families this would drive into the state sector from independent schools, especially because Labour don't have a clear policy (i.e. no VAT rate proposed). But there are many other ways a change like this could affect people's choices which are also impossible to predict at this point.

Benefits from such a proposal are equally uncertain and hard to quantify, and it's highly uncertain they'll outweigh the negeative. So beyond rabble rousing to win votes with the "politics of envy", I just don't see this really being very high up Labour's actual priorities if they get into power.

I think abolishing private schools would be similar to Brexit. An emotional kneejerk reaction which would end up having huge social and financial repercussions that those in favour totally underestimated.

The top private schools will then become the destination for Far Eastern Princes, Russian millionaires, and countries with 'dirty' money.

British private schools are very popular overseas. Quite honestly I don’t think many of those opposed to private education would mind if these schools with became solely for overseas students. If anyone objected they’d be told they were racist.

Private schools are businesses first and foremost. They are not charities in the least.

If they are stripped of their charitable status then like all businesses they will have to find ways to adapt to their new circumstances. This might be by holding or reducing the price they charge their customers. This would affect their profits and might also affect the quality of their service. But it is what all other businesses, such as restaurants for instance, are expected to do.

Like your friendly neighbourhood restaurant they could enhance value by getting creative with the menu or offer special deals in an effort to retain customers and even gain new ones. Or they might go to the wall. That's business for you.

Removing the subsidy of charitable status would mean a leaner and fitter business environment where only the strong survived. It would also create a buyers' market which would benefit customers - in this case parents. The increased competition would ensure that things only got better. I'm not an economist by trade but that's the theory behind a light touch capitalist economy, isn't it? Public subsidy is rather frowned upon when it comes to business, private or state sector.

There is no immediate cause for parents currently sending their children to private schools to fret about burdening the state education system that most other people use if the schools they have chosen turn out to be unequal to the challenge. But it is kind of them to care.

That's just a suggestion. I wouldn't presume to tell business people how to run their business. But the more I think about the upside of freeing private businesses from the shackles of public subsidy the better I like it.

Please can you explain how you can define the current lack of VAT on school fees as a “public subsidy”. The government is not giving money to private schools, it is just not charging additional tax on top of fees. There is a difference. Do you see supermarkets as benefiting from a “public subsidy” on the food and drink they sell which don’t attract VAT? Do you think the private business of a supermarket should be freed from “the shackles of public subsidy” as well?

I can't see how many dc will still attend if 20% extra is charged? That means a lot will shut. I'm sure places like Eton will survive but a lot of private schools won't, I'd go so far as to say the majority?
This is a false argument. Charging VAT doesn't automatically mean that schools.will put their fees up by 20%. They could absorb some of the costs themselves and do the same that state schools have to do and cut their cloth accordingly and make savings. They will still have more funding per child than state schools.
Also if any schools do feel they have go close (and I very much doubt it is most of them!) If they are good enough and if they are willing to take pupils without selecting them they could always apply to become an academy or free school and join the state sector.

They are not businesses. There are no shareholders, no profits. They're no more or less a business than schools in the state sector. They provide a service and somebody pays, the only difference is who pays.

Got me thinking about the ramifications of forcing them to become businesses though. Profit would incentivise different behaviour, encourage speculative investment, rapid growth, new ownership, M&A activity. The independent sector could actually expand more rapidly, especially if big US tech or CCP money showed an interest.

@oldwhyno Some schools are already not charities. Increasingly new independent schools dont bother registering as a charity.

It's a rather topsy-turvy world some inhabit where a tax cut is a "subsidy and where a benefits cut is a "tax".

Old is onto something there. For the private schools who share their facilities with the community, who provide bursaries etc. That is likely to really change and look how well the closure of grammar schools went back in the 70's. I went to a terrible sec modern and wouldnt wish that on anyone. The grammars are some of the most sought after state schools now and catchment areas have high house prices.The worst thing was Shirley Williams the Education Secetary in the 1970's sent her child to a direct grant school. Funny that...

It’s odd how this narrative has run I agree with you

@Another76543 I don't believe private schools should have automatic exemption from VAT on their fees on their assumed charitable status. At the very least it should be examined on a case by case basis as it is with supermarkets on the products they sell or manufacturers on whether a Jaffa Cake is a biscuit or a cake.

@oldwhyno charitable status should be more closely examined for schools and many other organisations. Not just for the tax take but to see how they are run. That should go for all businesses or organisations or whatever you want to call them who are benefiting from charitable status.

Though others disagree, I insist a tax break is a subsidy in another name. That is my opinion to which I am entitled. Others are entitled to disagree and we'll let the Chancellor of the day settle it. It's also an incentive. I agree with you that forcing private schools to admit they are businesses may improve performance for customers.

As a customer, not of private schools but of many other businesses/organisations, I believe that would be a good thing. I am not against competition or private enterprise but believe it should be transparent.

I insist a tax break is a subsidy in another name.

That’s absolutely what it is.

This is an interesting thread. I don’t think the Government (Tory or Labour) will abolish private schools. Mainly because it’s too difficult. Someone owns the buildings and intellectual capital. Depending on the school, this will be expensive at market rates. The owners would have the resources to challenge any proposal to forcibly buy them in court.

Looking at the ISC census, there are a record number of pupils in the independent sector. It may be that a decision to charge 5% VAT won’t fatally damage it - perhaps 20% would.

Having said that, the well known independent schools will survive. Apart from anything else, they tend to be hugely oversubscribed.