School fees have risen by 19% in the space of 12 months

[Findingfactsaboutfees]

AIBU to think this is outrageous ?! Fees are exorbitant anyhow and in the last 12 months we have had an increase of 19% by way of 2 increases in a 12 month period. Fees per year for the senior school are £16690 per year and do not include state of the art facilities as other local schools do. The junior school fees aren't much less either! This is a school in the north of England. If you are paying for education, where are you based and how much do you pay? I wonder whether it is comparable.

Private education will only be for the ultra-rich if fees continue to rise at the rate that they are. It is unsustainable for most working professionals who are comfortable but not ultra-wealthy! Parents locally have tried to take their children out but can't as there are no state school places to be had within a 12 mile radius. The only other option is home schooling which isn't possible when the parents are working full time. We're not yet at the point where we are thinking of taking our child out of school but hearing the plight of those who are in the process of trying to is worrying. I've always been a labour voter but if they do go ahead with the introduction of VAT, I fear it's going to get even worse.

"What will the impact be on UK universities if UK loses its trade mark for top education globally?"

The private school reputation for education and university reputation for education are two different things. One can say for sure that the UK's trade mark for top education globally at university level has been damaged by Brexit though.

So the competitive private schools in London will be absolutely fine as well as the top names like Eton and Wycombe Abbey (throwing that in for good measure for the girls). It will be enough to keep attracting the eg Nigerian students to pay 70k for a medical degree in the UK because our uni funding is decimated post Brexit.
All good then. Who cares about the SEN kids up North in the minor private schools, right?
Such a fantastic policy from Labour innit.

My question @Intergalacticcatharsis was why would there be an impact on universities, I don't get it?

They also place a higher emphasis on religion. For context in Hinduism there's a Goddess of Education - it's part of the culture to hold a good education and a highly educated person in high regard.

Because the UK’s reputation globally is in the doldrums and we have a weak pound and internationally we are no longer seen as an aspirational place to come. So whatever our new (hopefully!) government does - none of it should be stuff that kills or negatively affects anything we are still well known for. And that includes education. It is just not worth the risk for the minor wins in the name of equality that could be made. It is a divisive policy devised to promote a reaction in people towards the elite - largely in people who know nothing about the private school sector. But it can have poor consequences indirectly for exactly those same people. So it just is not worth it.
And it must definitely will have an indirect impact on universities because our lovely press will big it up to the point that it will have exactly that impact. Ironically, all those lecturers who despite private schools, not worth it!

I'm not sure how this thread has deviated to such a large extent to become a private vs state debate.
I intend to send my child to a private school - I'm trying my best to give my child the best opportunities in life.
I'm not sure why someone like me should be shot down for it.
Everyone wants best for their own child - if you have the money to send your child to a top notch private school but instead choose a shitty state school on principles then you maybe have right to lecture someone else.
Otherwise you're just sour grapes.

This, I can only think of 3 families I know who send their children to private school. SE largely affluent commuter town

And it must definitely will have an indirect impact on universities because our lovely press will big it up to the point that it will have exactly that impact.

I still don't understand how HE's reputation will be affected by this. Do you think there will be rich Chinese families crossing LSE and Imperial off their wish lists because British taxpayers are no longer propping up minor private schools?

I don't see the UK's reputation will be affected either by the decision to remove tax breaks for a luxury driver of social inequality. (Unless it's in a positive way. Redistribution of wealth and equality of opportunity are fairly standard centre left policy aims.)

"I'm not sure why someone like me should be shot down for it."

You are not getting shot down for it. What is being challenged is the fact that tax breaks are applied to private schools.

"shitty state school"

See this is why people get annoyed by private school parents. The vast majority of state schools provide a good level of education, but you choose to denigrate it whilst demanding your privileges are protected.

"And it must definitely will have an indirect impact on universities because our lovely press will big it up to the point that it will have exactly that impact."

It will not.

Brexit has had the worst impact on HE of any government policy. Removing private school charity status and the privileges it awards will not have any impact on HE.

People seem to think private fees increasing will cause strain in the state system.

As has been repeatedly explained, there is falling birth rate rate nationally and in my 2 counties, nearly 40% of primary school places are vacant. This actually puts more strain on state school resources. I’m sure all the super well educated economists and financial analysts on the thread (🤔) understand the concept of fixed costs - you know like buildings, heating and even teachers based on class ratios. Schools have falling rolls meaning less funding as it’s done per pupil, but still have to cover fixed costs. It is far more economical to have schools nearing capacity. Those schools are now applying for deficit budgets, which the local authority covers.

So no, an influx of private students into state is (on average) not going to cause strain to the system either numbers or government funding.

Nobody’s “shooting you down”. They are objecting to subsidising you by the failure to tax the luxury service you’re choosing to buy.

There is that childish - you are just jealous accusation. It is tiresome.

This old chestnut. No one is “subsidising” the private sector by not taxing it. If I didn’t use the private system, my children would cost the state around £6,500 per child per year. So, in saving the state that money, they cannot be “subsidising” me. My children are not costing the state anything. Subsidising means paying part of the cost of something. The government are not paying anything into the private system, they are just not taxing it extra. There is a vast difference.

I can assure you that the government are not subsidising my family in any way whatsoever. I can assure you though that we are subsidising plenty of other families through the tax system.

Well @Owchy if this country was not so central government focussed, then a local authority could respond to its changing needs quite quickly. For example, they could say this is the Covid generation, they deserve more time in primary let’s do middle schools years 7-9 in the defunct primary buildings. They could actually respond quickly to the needs of the local kids like they do in some other European countries.
Part of the problem with some secondary schools are their size and crumbling facilities.

Well, that hit a nerve! Luxuries should be taxed. Regardless of whether you consider the 20% tax non payment a subsidy or not, that’s exactly what it is. The Treasury, ergo the taxpayer, is poorer by virtue of failure to levy a tax.

In which case, give us a tax credit for the £6,500 we are giving the state and not using a place in a State School.

Thats precisely were your kind of logic ends.

If you think that’s logic, you need a little coaching.

Which is precisely what Finland does. I’ll happily pay tax on the “luxury” element. What we shouldn’t be taxed on is the basic education part which is a legal requirement, and if every child deserves to be treated equally by the state, give us the credit for the basic education element.

It’s not whether I consider the 20% a subsidy. It’s basic English. Check the dictionary. Not taxing something does not make it a subsidy.

The Treasury, ergo the taxpayer, is richer by virtue of me not using the state system. So, by your logic, I’m subsidising the state.

Dictionary definition of subsidy Governments can provide subsidies through tax reduction.

Boo hoo. Your kids will just have to slum it with the ruffians won't they.

Whoops, that backfired a bit 😳

Damn you and your basic English @Blossomtoes
😂

No they won’t. They’ll be staying exactly where they are.

You clearly never studied economics.

That much is obvious when you quote the dictionary.

Just pure lol

Is this really the best analysis you can offer?

Because this is feeling like a waste of time. You clearly have precisely zero experience and knowledge in these matters.