To not see how the gov will make any money from taxing private schools?

[AngryHedgehog]

All the other threads seem to have descended into bunfighting over the ethics of the policy, yet I'm not really understanding how this stands to benefit the government as surely they'll be footing the bill for all the kids that move to state schools?

As a disclaimer, I don't have kids and wouldn't be able to afford to privately educate them even if I did, despite earning a half decent salary.

I'm reading that it costs around £7k per pupil per term, so it would take the VAT from around four families to fund each additional child moving to state education.

Given that this may be 4/10 kids in private education moving to state schooling, I don't see how this doesn't create a net loss as there will only be 50% more kids left in private education and there needs to be multiple times that for the VAT increase to foot the bill.

Surely I'm missing something here?

Except we are talking about education not business. Profits aren't given to shareholders, they are put back into the school eg bursaries/scholarships etc.
How about Acadamies which are definitely run as businesses, should they be taxed?

Can I ask a question about this? Obviously the range of subjects is something that attracts parents, but presumably some of the less popular unusual subjects are basically subsidised by families that arent picking them? Like a class with 6 cant be as viable as one with 18. Would you rather less options and no fee increase or keep a range of subjects (which your child hasn't in the end picked as they can't possible be doing all 10 extra ones) and higher fees.

@EasternStandard

"If this 20% tax closes schools, shifts students, makes the best state more inaccessible and no extra funding / teachers do you still applaud it?"

I don't believe that will happen.

The only studies available show a small decrease in private students.

"Makes the best state more inaccessible" - fair point if ex-privates move into best state catchments. It's possible.

But then you assume the status quo in underfunded schools for the foreseeable, which is not my experience under the last Labour government.

As an aside, my own kids went to a bog standard comp.

Both entered between 2006 and 2010.

During that time, it went from a shit school to one of the best in the locality.

A combination of a new great headteacher and investment.

The 6th form is renowned.

I don’t think it is that simple. Most parents I know work all hours to pay the fees and are not that into running the school and vote for various options. As long as class sizes are small, the needs of the children are met and there are lot of options / extra curricular activities - they are happy. If that is not the case, why pay the additional (very high) cost?

one complaint I have heard by some parents is that certain schools are run with a focus only on English, maths and stem - and results. Whereas they expect more choice / extracurricular and sports in a private school.

if the schools are focusing only on key topics, larger class sizes and cutting down extras, why not go state and buy the extracurricular outside?

I think it’s good for children to have a wide choice so that they can pick the things they’re good at. Some state schools offer more than others. Ideally, they should all offer the same. Our catchment school doesn’t even do GCSE music, German or RE. They’re not exactly rare subjects to study!

As an aside, my own kids went to a bog standard comp.
Both entered between 2006 and 2010.

I think the vast majority of parents and teachers would agree that schools have changed dramatically in the last 15-20 years.

I look at funding policy with these Labour proposals and I’m
not seeing it as beneficial to state, which we use, as behaviourally it’s unsound and there won’t be that funding.

Sadly it’s a poor policy for votes not decent reasoning or execution

The studies (there are not many) don’t really show what the survey shows, and asking parents is a good way to do it. Although not perfect

Bigger classes means less teachers are needed. The biggest cost to a private school is its teachers. That’s the only realistic way of saving a significant amount of money. So by saying that the schools themselves need to absorb the cost, you are saying that they need to make people redundant.

But it must cost more to run an ancient Greek class with 3 students, over something more mainstream like Spanish German or French with 15 students in each (which is still small)

so I was just curious if instead of 10 extra options over the top of the standard state school, they could get away with the 3 most popular extra. State schools already normally offer history, geography, re, business, comp science, two languages, art, pe, food tech, textiles, graphics etc. I

I'm not suggesting large classes, I'm suggesting that 10 options over state must make the uptake of each option incredibly small.

Perhaps this school that offered 10 options over state was compared to a very restricted state school, which makes more sense. The state I work at and the different state my son attended offered a good 17 subjects over English maths and science - so I was imagining much more unusual gcses than music or German.

Obviously in an ideal world a child could pick from any gcse that is offered from urdu to astronomy and be taught it well.

But I'm just trying to gauge if people would prefer to pay more to keep the breadth as realistically classes with less uptake are less viable.

Intentionally

@Another76543

"I think the vast majority of parents and teachers would agree that schools have changed dramatically in the last 15-20 years."

By "changed", what do you mean. Better or worse?

Since 2010, that's under a Conservative government.

It’s an “outstanding” state school (admittedly one which hasn’t been inspected for years). I know several people who sent their child there and have since moved them. I’m happy to pay for my children to have a wide choice. I don’t think I should penalised through the tax system when my local
state option doesn’t offer subjects my children are interested in though, especially when some state schools in other areas offer a much wider choice.

Worse. I think the problems run far deeper than funding though (a whole other thread topic!). My point is that I don’t think you can compare state schools now with how they were almost a generation ago. I say that as someone who was state educated.

@Another76543 you might not get any choice. If labour win and go ahead with this, I wouldn't be surprised to find your school making changes to deal with this
I'm not pro VAT as I'm an education shouldnt be taxed person, but I'm interested as to what schools will do to adapt.

I think lots of schools will have to make changes. Some will be be fine. The larger, more wealthy schools won’t be affected as much (partly because they’ll have more input VAT to reclaim). Others won’t, especially smaller schools. It’s a mess. I just can’t understand the logic of disrupting so many happy children’s education for a policy which will raise very little, if anything at all.

@@Another76543 this is it- it'll be the smaller, independent schools that will close that attract the parents who are already pushing themselves to privately educate. The big, wealthy schools attract parents who won't notice any difference so it'll become even more elitist.

This is exactly what happened when the Greek government did the same thing and it ended up costing them and was regarded a a total failure but hey it appeals to the voters

This is exactly what happened when the Greek government did the same thing and it ended up costing them and was regarded a a total failure but hey it appeals to the voters.

How did Greece, a member of the EU, manage to impose VAT on education since it’s illegal under EU rules?

It's virtue signalling and isn't going to raise a significant amount. Smaller private schools will close.

But I'm just trying to gauge if people would prefer to pay more to keep the breadth as realistically classes with less uptake are less viable

I work in an independent which we laughingly call 'the stem school'. Parents want a range of subjects and would certainly question why there's only one language, for example. Many would vote with their feet and off themselves to the competition if the breadth of education at KS3 were to be reduced. And then force their none-stem inclined kids through triple science at GCSE and beyond. But that's a different issue.

The most expensive and elitist private schools will stay open. And the parents they attract will be from more wealthy families.

Which makes this Labour policy quite amusing really in some ways.

I honestly think it will create huge problems for state schools. Rough numbers but there's 7 private secondary schools within a 20 minute drive of where I live. Assuming they have 1,000 pupils each (which is probably underestimate as ours has 1,300), that's 7,000 pupils.

If 20% of those pupils leave, that's 1,400. I've looked at the current state school vacancies in the same area and while there's availability in sixth forms (although that has its limitations too), only four state schools have spaces and mostly only in one or two years. At least one has a requires improvement Ofsted rating so I suspect has availability for a reason.

Where are those 1,400 pupils going to go? Not into the local state schools because there isn't availability. I guess they could all increase class sizes but that doesn't benefit pupils and isn't always logistically possible. It's not going to help teachers' stress levels either.

We live in a densely populated area near London and perhaps more rural areas have capacity. But I fear that this issue replicated on a national scale could create significant issues and have the reverse effect of levelling up. (And I'm an ex grammar school pupil and equally a fan of state as private education).

I think (although I don’t know the full details) that Greece introduced VAT on private education. The EC then pointed out it was in breach of an EU VAT directive and it ended up being scrapped, but not until the sector had been badly damaged.

I highly doubt 20% will leave. Of course any survey of PE consumers will say they will consider it. There is actually no way of knowing. Just like those on lower incomes have had to tighten belts and make savings, so too will families effected by this. They are the most privileged and well resourced people in the world. I’m sure they will find a way. Seriously. This hand wringing is embarrassing. As one of the lowest income families using DCs old private school, I’d have found a way.

You doubting it because it doesn’t support your preference for a poor policy won’t change outcomes

It’s not ‘hand wringing’ but if I were to consider what’s embarrassing it’s this policy which is red meat for voters and lacks economic and educational sense