To think only the super rich will be able to afford private schools?

[donniedarko89]

I live in a fairly affluent area, full of private schools. We are comfortable, not wealthy, and considered private for secondary eventually (and who knows, with the cost of living crisis), while enriching the state primary's offer with lots of extra clubs and activities. Noticing that more and more families are doing the same, even high-earners who would in the past have gone private by default. Are private schools going to become only for the ultra rich, especially if the fees spike up with a Labour government?

State schools don't have the option to exclude for poor behaviour and low level constant disruption. It's kind of the deal, offering free comprehensive education that you educate every child.

So it is literally buying your way out of being amongst the many.

Local authorities also pay for 1000s of places in private special schools as well as private mainstream schools. Raising fees will drain money from councils. Vulnerable children will be affected as local authorities will be increasingly reluctant to educate ALL children.

Children who struggle to cope in school are mostly those who are especially in need of expert education - not parents who are scratching to get by.

Conditions like poor mental health and neurodiversity are often hereditary. If I was dyslexic it would be a struggle to help my dyslexic child if I didnt have the right tools to help.

Lockdown answered how impossible homeschooling would be for our family. Other families did find the opposite as children who were being traumatised by the school system found relief to be away from it.

Am no fan of private education but this is another example of the eroding middle class (higher end for private school). With no changes to improve inequality the future is super rich, just getting by and the destitute . 2008 crash and covid enriched the v wealthy. Note total wealth of UK billionaires:

▪️2012: £212 Billion
▪️2022: £653 Billion

Are you worried that people with similar incomes to you are being priced out of private education? If so, who care? Genuinely?

People who send their children to private schools don’t tend to care that the children of people on low incomes can’t attend. They willingly pay for their children to receive a better education than their peers.

If some of those people are now priced out of an unfair system, good. If this means more private schools close, even better.

People judge state schools for overly liberal, inclusive education but what choice do those school leaders have?!

I see schools as mini countries. If you could choose your citizens. It's a game changer. State schools are beautiful, diverse and society reflecting places and should be funded to fulfil the needs of every type of child who walks in the doors. That's the dream. That includes the socially anxious, the child who needs 1:1 support to access group lessons and the super bright.

Comprehensive is completely achievable if funded properly. People who can afford to opt out of it do so because it's not funded properly. Comprehensive doesn't mean the school should offer every child who attends the same thing.

@WesterChick it took too tribunals with the help of the charity IPSEA.

Unbelievably on consultation for places schools can say no to children with EHCPs.

Not all children with special needs are disruptive. Some may have hearing or sight loss or physical disabilities which very large mainstream schools don't accommodate

Surely you recognise that this is a niche situation that isn't representative as an argument to maintain the whole concept of private schools? Wouldn't you prefer state schools to be properly funded like they are in most civilised countries that aren't in thrall to either capitalism (education as profitable) or class / privilege by birth driven?

Don't know and don't care. There are more important issues.

Pharmacist and GP would have had bags of money back in the day.

Sacrifices might have included not buying a second home or not travelling to Disneyland twice a year.

Its a tax issue isn't it. I think we can all agree that state schools need significantly more funding. Should that additional burden land mainly on the parents of children who are trying to exit the state system regardless of their personal finances?

Some families with children at private schools would be able to be taxed to pay for a whole mainstream primary school to run for a year without feeling the pinch. Plenty of people send their kids to state schools and earn much more than some who scrape to pay for private.

Why should those who've benefitted from private schools and gone on to earn millions, not pay more into the state system? Those Russian oligarchs who buy up houses in Kensington not paying more for the privilege of living and laundering money in the UK?

The burden is falling indiscriminately on families with young children.

Exactly this. So a certain type of person / level of income that used to be able to pay for private schooling no longer can. Just like the vast majority of people. So what?

The fewer the better.

Only relatively well off parents put their under 3s in nursery. This is obviously news to you, but parents on low paid jobs don't put their babies in full time nursery and return to their NMW job. People either have a parent at home until the child is 3 (probably working alternate hours with a partner), use free childcare from family, or claim benefits. If you do use a nursery you get 20% off through tax free childcare.

Nursery is definitely not affordable for all - that's why they are bringing in free nursery hours from age 2 next year.

I think that most of their target market will barely notice the price increase. Nearly everyone I work with sends their kids to private school and I think they would do so even if the cost doubled.

It should be government policy though to provide the right education for all
A private special school for complex needs is not what pp talking about . Most of those don't take privately funded individuals. They only take LA funded EHCP students.

I prdsune op is talking about largely academic selective private schools offering the averagecto bright small classes and frills

It's meant to be exclusive. Having it achievable by more people will lower its appeal.

Every parent should be voting conservative for this policy.

Private schools have charitable status so are not just for the super rich. They offer full or part bursaries for many children, kids from less wealthy families don’t always need to pay.

@cestlavielife

"I prdsune op is talking about largely academic selective private schools offering the averagecto bright small classes and frills"

This is EXACTLY the kind of school my local authority is paying for. And my child is not the only one ....
Local authorities are facing a 20% increase too, not just "wealthy parents"

pretty sure this was Labour's policy at the last election, when it was dismissed as unaffordable and communist

Their policies are communist and unaffordable.

Private school gives an unfair advantage. I don’t care who gets to have it or how,the fewer children that have this the better so I’m glad people are being priced out

Getting good grades in a state school is not the problem - thousands of students get excellent grades and attend good universities from state schools, even mediocre ones.

Attending a really bad state school is going to cause issues with aspiration, self esteem, positive role models, interview skills, none of which are helped by contextual offers (do these even exist? Perhaps on a small number of courses at very few institutions? But don't think they are widespread)

I am against the existence of private schools but I wouldn't advise any parent to choose a terrible state school over a private school just to get a contextual offer! There's a lot more to education than just getting good grades

Why - do you think labour would reverse it if they get in?