To be gleeful that most of us were right

[Wranglestar]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/adding-vat-to-private-school-fees-has-had-no-obvious-impact-on-state-sector-applications-390546/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2ATdaVlNkJsbtC-KizuW4Fw41obnpvezxnFv4IAFwzJPHXmU90Awr5eqAaem9tMIsn9I0vHSC4jrdYONIA#0rd9makyd4264nstc4us9j77yk5kaoswtLondon Economic

And that private schools has had no impact on state school places. The rich have simply - paid more. Excellent news!

I missed the starting claxon. Are we at the bottom yet?

Why does it matter? To be ‘gleeful’ suggests an element of spite. I’ve never been in a position to afford private schooling, but don’t begrudge those lucky enough to be able to.

Our school didn’t pass on the hike. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Just a nasty post from the op.

Isn't this cohort a lower birth rate year? So actually less children needing places than in years gone by
That will have certainly helped the impact not being felt quite so acutely.
Also the snowball effect will take time to gather momentum so I wouldn't be too gleeful just yet.

I hope your children enjoy the free 60p breakfasts

What statistics? Not the ones in this article, because they don’t prove anything, except that state school applications have gone up in some places.
Applications doesn’t equal places taken up. Those who go private will usually also apply for state as well.
We will only know the true impact once we know the number of places taken up, not just for Year 7 but also in the sixth form.

Anyone who has an extra £20-30k per year is rich. Not billionaires, but almost nobody has that, which is why only about 7% of people send their kids to private school. Yes you are rich.

And this is a sensible approach. Parents should be able to take the approx 6k that a state school place costs, and use it towards online school, or private school. Parents know what will work best for their child, and having that option would open up tailored education to a greater number. And I get many would still not be able to afford it, but surely it's better than more rather than less children get an education which meets their needs, rather than the current race to the bottom approach

Pretty big assumption- considering you don’t know me and have no idea if I was talking about myself. I disagree with your definition of rich. People that have to work for a living aren’t rich…

For all the reasons spelt out on this thread and many more, you are far, far from being proved right. The number of school applications is an almost meaningless measure of the impact of this policy. I can’t help but roll my eyes massively at someone crowing that they have been proven right when anyone with common sense would know that this is a policy that will take years to result in whatever it’s full effects will be. Surely you know that though?

Fucks sake OP.

It’s not affecting ‘the rich’ - they haven’t noticed. I know this because I asked a friend how it was impacting them & she looked at me blankly with confusion. She has 4 children at Public school. She hadn’t noticed.

My DC is on a fixed amount bursary which made it (school) doable. It’s now not doable. So be gleeful. Please. Enjoy your glee. Revel in it.

Rich people have more money when they beed it. Who knew eh OP?!

Essentially, they’ll be taking up places that they may not have taken had the VAT not come in. Less places for truly deserving students - not a good thing!

Just so I'm clear, you think a child who's parents previously afforded (or presumably could afford but choose not to pay for) independent schooling is not deserving of a place at a good state school?

It’s only been a term. Many will still be weighing up options. Feels like a pretty rubbish thing to be gleeful about tbh.

@Lilactimes not just the last few months, I know that many families have moved their DC to other countries before the general election.

"... go out and earn it." Erh ...

Some years ago I wanted more money. Looked around, noticed that rich people generally hadn't earned their money but had inherited or got it by some kind of capitalist chicanery.

So I set to on the Forex and UK property market and made myself - and my family - some more money. I avoided (not evaded ) tax as much as possible. I stopped doing all that when I had enough and got a proper job; now retired.

So what? Well, I didn't send my children to private school, mainly because British private schools provide such dreadful education. (I didn't want my children to grow up to be people like Boris Johnson or Rishi Sunak or any of the other old Etonians and Wykehamists and so on.) All my children now have PhDs and serious socially-productive careers as well as good friends, partners and children themselves. So that was a good choice, phew. They seem happy.

And so what else? Just an opinion. One of the reasons Britain is in such a comparatively bad state is its continued apartheid educational system, wherein the kids of the rich go to these terrible establishments where they learn to be competitive and end up caring about useless things like wealth and power over their fellows. Then they finagle their way into power and do bad things.

"... what we need to compete ...": I taught my children it is better to cooperate than compete. I still think that true.

A pp mentioned Finland. It seems to me not coincidence Finland seems to do so well for its children these days, given the history of its education system. (Look it up. Learn from it.)

There are plenty of “rich” people at state school as well. Perhaps they should be the ones paying more through taxes given they’re the ones using the system. There is no logic to taxing a struggling family with children who have SEN, who scrimp and save for fees, saving the taxpayer by not using state resources, and then not taxing multi millionaires using the state system.

You don’t sound like you know much about the education system. Private schools are not all the same. There are excellent ones and not so great ones. Just like in the state system. Private schools are not all like Eton. So many people have huge chips on their shoulders when it comes to private education. I say that as someone who was state educated.

As for Finland, they actually subsidise private education. So yes, I agree, perhaps we can learn something from that system.

How lovely of you to be gleeful when teachers, teaching assistants, cleaners, office staff, kitchen staff and suppliers are losing their jobs.

This is why the policy is so ridiculous. The very wealthy aren’t really affected. Families who are affected are those who are already scrimping and saving to fund the fees, often because the state system has failed them. Schools are cutting back to try to mitigate fee increases. The government have actually told schools to cut their costs. Unfortunately, the only real way to do this is to reduce staff costs (by far the largest cost of running a school). That involves redundancies, cutting hours, and cutting other benefits such as pensions.

Where is the logic in introducing a policy which harms hardworking families and staff, to fund a daily bowl of cornflakes for children of millionaires?

Private school unfairly advantages the children who attend, it creates a tiered system and the people who lose out are those at the bottom. Taking yourself out of the system is not admirable, it is opting out because you think your own children deserve better than the poorer children in your community. You can paint that with whatever kind of moral spackle you like, it comes down to: you think your children deserve advantages above other children and are happy to prop up a whole social order that ensures those advantages will multiply until death. Those ‘opting in’ to the system help to level the playing field in lots of ways. No convincing me that private schools are an advantage to anyone but the wealthy, I’ve studied this too deeply.

Whilst this might sound good, I’d be slightly nervous of this. Either they have been overcharging, or they are making serious cuts elsewhere which is bound to affect the quality of education.

The problem is that it is a policy that makes private schooling more elite. You’re hearing about lots of bursaries being cut, reduced offering to the community etc. I’m not convinced secondary schools will be destabilised at all. Small standalone prep schools will be vulnerable though.

The biggest thing the government could do to stop people moving to private is making the state sector better. I went to a state secondary but I am keen to avoid my children going to our catchment one. VAT may however mean that we do 5 years instead of 7 and look for state sixth forms. VAT is a significant consideration and it would have to come from somewhere and that’s likely to be a reduction in discretionary spending. I do buy the arguments in the thread that spending cuts might hurt the broader economy and particularly service based things. Things that might go for us include piano lessons, gardening support and hotel stays.

There is greater inequality within the state system. It is more unfair that some families can access a funded, excellent, selective education whereas others only have the choice of a failing school. Sort the inequality affecting the 93% rather than concentrating on the 7%. The difference between the top performing state schools and the lowest performing ones is far greater than the difference between the best state schools and the private sector in general.

Does this include all the kids at Bruen Abbey or More House or the special schools that make up 58% of private school?

How about the Royal Ballet School or Purcell or Chets where the government pay the fees for most?

Or the no frills, small schools that just offer smaller classes for kids who struggle in mainstream?

Seems to me that your 'depth' of study might need a bit of a refresh.

I’m well aware of the inequality in state education. How is that an argument for private schools existing? It’s like saying ‘I deserve five houses because some people live in shitty rented accommodation.’