It's a private school one.....

[Noangelbuthavingfun]

Many threads on MN ... I want to know this: why haven't Labour given any info on their modelling of what will likely happen and the different scenarios that could play out when they impose VAT? It matters - because if they get thus wrong ... and a shed load of kids leave private because their families have scrimped to send them there ... the state sector in some councils will quickly be overwhelmed with kids needing state places that does not exist....which could be a lose lose for everyone! You don't build a new school and resource it in a month.... these things take years . I feel for all kids as they will all lose out if this happens and labour having got contingency in place.
How would you feel if your child is in a good state school , perhaps they get some SEND support...and suddenly there is an influx of private kids as they need the spaces. Class sizes go up to 40, all SEND provision gets cut as not enough funds, extra curricular gets cut and teachers are even more stressed, so the vicious circle if teacher shortages now intensifies....the spiral continues for years to come. Who has won?? No one ....
What are your thoughts on this ?
I don't disagree with the principle that private is a luxury and probably should pay VAT... what I disagree with is the notion you can just implement something that will fundamentally shift things on a seismic way in one big bang. No thought whatsoever. Tell me if you agree or have a different view and why ?

Some of us think Starmer will take us back into the Single Market you know and we live in hope. So vote Lib Dem for now, that is the answer. They do not support VAT on Education and they have pledged to take us back into the Single Market (you cannot do both!). If Labour do not get a huge majority they cannot do this VAT business and we are more likely to get closer to the EU again.

@Mirabai

"It indicates how divorced you are from understanding the sector you’re spouting about."

The fact that you think people who are normal middle classes are affording 32k for a year ( 192k for high school alone) shows just how delusional you are.

"30 years ago, before the huge rises in fees, they were full of middle class kids."

30 years ago they were full of the same kids they are today, they weren't full of people who's parents had mid level middle class incomes.

"St Paul’s was also full of assisted place students, bursaries, scholarships and teacher’s kids"

St Paul's gives support to 13% of its students, so it isn't full of them.

Again and again you are shown to be so wrong on the stuff you spout.

I'm not against private school. If you can afford it, knock yourself out.

What I am eye rolling about is people claiming this is the only reason they won't Labour, like this is the most important thing facing parents. The VAST majority of parents will be able to afford the increase. If schools are adding a full 20% increase to their fee's, then the school is ripping you off as not all of their expenses will be going up 20%.

It will affect less children than are currently languishing on waiting lists for abysmally underfunded CAMHS services. I would 100% support the money raised from this going direct to CAMHS.

Should private health clubs also be excluded from VAT as they are serving a purpose and saving the nhs?

Our Labour candidate told me yesterday (with some glee), that they want families with children who are currently at independent schools to move to their local state school so that these 'more invested' parents share their knowledge and experience to boost failing state schools. The assumption that parents already in the state system are not engaged/invested was utterly patronising as was the theory I might want to risk my child's education to move to a unfamiliar school (which is currently in special measures) to support future pupils. We are not in an area with outstanding state schools, nor are we in an area with grammar schools. What I do predict is that house prices will increase around the schools that are outstanding and the failing schools will remain under-funded.

DD is at a local prep and I don't have a huge problem with VAT being added, as long as the revenue recouped is actually focused towards recruiting teachers, keeping class sizes down and improving the outcomes for pupils in the state system. It bothers me that the onus so far (as the Labour candidate told me) is on parents to improve the system - but not for their own children - for the children of the future who will attend these institutions one day. I wonder how many Labour candidates will be removing their children from their independent settings to help support and develop their local state schools?

And that 13% on reduced fee's at St Pauls includes those getting 5% bursary, 10% bursary, and those getting financial assistance for music lessons.

their bursary policy also includes this, for when they are investigating the ability for a family to pay:

".. If a family home is considered too large, or in an expensive area, moving or re-mortgaging would be expected to release capital .. "

I've been going through the 16+ scholarships / bursaries for schools in London and this isn't unusual. (My son is both academically gifted and also very competitive when it comes to academics and has asked me to investigate private 6th forms!! We won't be applying, but we are lucky that we have a number of very very good selective 6th forms within sensible travel time from us, such as LAE and Kings Maths School which offer what he wants)

This idea that all these private parents will be moving into catchment for good schools puzzles me. Why would be they blow so much money on stamp duty / estate agent fee's / solicitor fee's which could have just been spent on the price rise at their children's school?? Stamp Duty alone will be £25k on a £500k house. That would pay for 7 years of a 20% increase on a £16k a year school.

"And that 13% on reduced fee's at St Pauls includes those getting 5% bursary, 10% bursary, and those getting financial assistance for music lessons."

Which rather further indicates that the bursaries are not going to people who are from average backgrounds.

"This idea that all these private parents will be moving into catchment for good schools puzzles me."

They already live in the good catchements, its threatening others if they don't get their way.

What do you not understand about the exponential rise of school fees out of line with inflation over the past 25-30 years? Or are simply ignorant of that? St Paul’s fees have risen 30% just since 2016 let alone 30 years ago.

30 years ago St Paul’s was absolutely full of mid middle class income. And as I say there were bursaries, discounts for teacher’s offspring and many assisted places.

Now they are aiming to raise the numbers of substantial financial support to 20%. They don’t have assisted place scheme now to boost those numbers, the finance has to be raised privately.

If you have multiple children then the one-off cost of stamp duty etc (plus the long term growth in value of a significant asset) can easily look appealing against VAT and unknown increases that the schools set themselves.

Property prices are already spiking in areas that are lucky enough to have a top school nearby so this is currently happening.

@Mirabai

Yes they've increased above inflation, I know, yet numbers are still up, so it shows that the scaremongering about people leaving are just that. I mean, that's what I've been saying all along, but you and others have constantly said that I'm incorrect, your numbers prove me right.

St Paul's school for girls was ALWAYS more expensive that the average private school, just as it is today. It wasn't affordable for those on standard middle class incomes even back in the 90s, pretending that it was so simply shows how divorced you are from reality.

If you have multiple children, then you will be most likely spending more than £500k for a house. Buying a £1m house would pay for 7 years for 4 kids.

I agree with all of this. Music provision even in good private and state schools is pitiful. Only a handful have seriously good music departments.

The numbers are still up because state schools are failing and some parents prioritise education even if it means paying; and because the increase in wealth inequality with advent of super high salaries over the last 30 years means some people are insulated from the price rises.

It was slightly more expensive than other London private schools 30 years ago but not that much, and far cheaper than boarding schools. It was affordable for those on middle incomes. I know this because I was there. Now please stop spouting such ignorant nonsense.

"Property prices are already spiking in areas that are lucky enough to have a top school nearby so this is currently happening."

Property prices have always been high in areas with a good school nearby, so this isn't just happening.

Want to provide me evidence that its because of the school?

"If you have multiple children then the one-off cost of stamp duty etc (plus the long term growth in value of a significant asset) can easily look appealing against VAT and unknown increases that the schools set themselves."

Which is why we all know that private school parents ALL READY live in the catchements for these schools,

Yes, and after 10+ years (or the time taken to see four children through prep and senior school), it's very likely that your initial investment in your property will have grown to be far more valuable.

Equally, can you provide me evidence that 'the private school parents ALL READY live in the catchments for these schools'

We certainly don't, and neither do a lot of our friends.

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/labours-tax-policy-on-private-schools-to-drive-up-house-prices-near-top-state-schools/

". It was affordable for those on middle incomes. I know this because I was there. Now please stop spouting such ignorant nonsense."

Ah yes and as a teenager you had a really good idea of what was a middle income in the 1990s didn't you. You knew exactly what your friends parents earned?

St Paul's has always been way more expensive than your average private school and highly exclusive. You can know that by looking at median incomes from each year and comparing it with fees.

For example in 2012 ( prior to the decade long hike in fees) the UK median income was 26,500 and St Paul's fees were 18,871

Easily disproved.

Again.

.

Private school parents who happen to already live in a good catchment can easily move kids - they just need to get one kid in and then siblings tend to go to the top of the waiting list. So if you have a child in transition start there. Those who don’t will have to move at a transition point for one of their children. Moreover once 1 child is in, they might be able to appeal anyway.

'the private school parents ALL READY live in the catchments for these schools'

Well yes, as over 90% of private school households are in the top decile for incomes it make sense to assume that they live in the most in demand areas in the towns and cities in which they live.

A cursory glance at any addresses data held by schools on parents shows this. Parents are not prioritising education over housing ( it would be a very bad financial decision) they actually have both.

It was the 80s. Of course I knew what middle income was. You have forgotten London weighting. St Paul’s was not hugely more expensive than the other private schools in that area of London. There was a subset of very wealthy parents, but the majority was in the middle and then a subset of lower incomes with bursaries and assisted places, and a lot of teachers’ children. And help from grandparents.

@Araminta1003

Yes, but because the movement is going to be so small, and private school catchments are much wider, the impact is going to be negligible.

The threats just don't add up.

"It was the 80s. Of course I knew what middle income was."

Keep telling yourself that. What you maybe had an idea of was what was the middle incomes of the girls at St Paul's. Not anything wider.

"At this point you’re just posting invention."

Nope I gave you the median national income and the fees from St Pauls from over a decade ago which proved you wrong.

What was the fee in the 80s?