So, Keir Starmer is intending to remove charitable status

[BadgerB]

He intends to use the money raised to "shake-up" the State schools.

Has he thought this through - the number of children whose parents just about manage fees, who will then transfer their kids to state schools.

How many? How much will this cost? And how soon can the necessary expansion be effected?

Of course, the really rich will be able to dig deeper into their pockets

@Placido @Newgirls I used to be a governor at such a school and was shocked at how dependent they were on numbers. For good or bad parents use private schools for myriad reasons including longer day, class size, specialist teachers, MFL teaching, sport, music, art, ethos, behaviour, like minded parents etc etc that they see as lacking in the state sector. Of course we could have a debate about all these things but - by definition- they are not seen as interchangeable with what is on offer in the state sector

For every child in private secondary school, the government “saves” £5,000. That is, the amount per child given in the state sector.

If, over time, 10% of those currently privately educated are no longer able to attend and move back into the state sector then that would cost the government in the region of £307.5 million. Back of a fag packet calculation but not a number to be sniffed at.

I don’t think schools should have charitable status but, that aside, how about all political parties put their hands up and admit how woefully underfunded the education system has been in the U.K. over the last couple of decade? There are huge discrepancies between the standards of education available between state schools. ALL schools essentially select by money as house prices next to the “best” ones are out of reach for many. Seems their response is to bury their heads in the sand and blame private schools…….

Any school that couldn't survive could go into the state sector. Staff still employed and buildings utilised. It doesn't have to be like this. Every child could have access to the same standard of teaching for free. Wouldn't that be a wonderful thing?

People will say they didn't make the system so why should their child be disadvantaged given they can buy their way out of comprehensive? But why should any child be disadvantaged? How can we justify it as a society?

Of course this should happen. Its bizarre it hasn’t happened sooner.

Most parents who send their children will be able to bear the rise. The vast majority are home owners and given the huge increase in property prices, they can draw from this increase which is unearned.

Yeah, it’s time.

@MarshaBradyo I think it will depend on his second term cabinet. Gove and Hammond have always been keen on the VAT fees solution, but they are on back foot and ousted. But as you can imagine it would go down well with the red wall voters who see an array of badly funded state school offerings. Interesting times watching a Tory prime minister try and hang on to such a diverse electorate.

[quote VanCleefArpels]**@Placido* @Newgirls* I used to be a governor at such a school and was shocked at how dependent they were on numbers. For good or bad parents use private schools for myriad reasons including longer day, class size, specialist teachers, MFL teaching, sport, music, art, ethos, behaviour, like minded parents etc etc that they see as lacking in the state sector. Of course we could have a debate about all these things but - by definition- they are not seen as interchangeable with what is on offer in the state sector[/quote]
It sounds like they needed to fit more kids in the classrooms?!

What would happen to the children who are there because of the school’s charitable status on bursaries etc?

Anyone know where the big Chinese chains of U.K. private schools fall on charitable status. Clearly they aren’t pretending to be in the game for any reason rather than profit - are those chains exempt from charitable status?

@Zodlebud I entirely agree abd it astonishes ne there isnt more examination of what the private sector dues well with a view to replicating it in the state sector. It’s noticeable that state academies such as the Harris Academies in London that deliberately adopted the strict discipline, formal
Uniform, longer day model has been extremely successful

We also have to look at the better education systems out there in Scandinavian countries for a start. We could do so much better. It benefits us ALL to raise education standards rather than just for the few.

It’s a bold move by Starmer and well over due

@VanCleefArpels many state schools surpass their local private offerings. You are playing with generalisations here.

[quote VanCleefArpels]@Zodlebud I entirely agree abd it astonishes ne there isnt more examination of what the private sector dues well with a view to replicating it in the state sector. It’s noticeable that state academies such as the Harris Academies in London that deliberately adopted the strict discipline, formal
Uniform, longer day model has been extremely successful[/quote]
I think state schools have looked at this. Certainly in Herts there are smart uniforms etc

Yet it doesn’t seem to be needed in day France.

The UK seems to find comfort in ‘traditional’ ways when really we need to move forward and learn from other countries

[quote Placido]@VanCleefArpels many state schools surpass their local private offerings. You are playing with generalisations here.[/quote]
Yes true in Herts. Parents choose state over private, many of whom could afford private.

Facilities, teaching, arts, sports etc better in the good state schools. The private schools are mostly used by people not in catchment.

Excellent idea. The very rich can easily afford it and don’t think it will make it unaffordable for many. If it does then those private schools that are struggling could do more for their parents to bring fees down. Eg. Not serve lobster at lunch or have ridiculously expensive school uniforms, extend their school terms so less needs to be spent on holiday childcare, sell off some of their many, many sports fields. My sympathy for private schools is very limited

@Newgirls we have a cracking comp on our doorstep - amazing sports, extra curricular, 3 orchestras, various choirs (chamber, musicals) more academic than the nearest fee paying (so if children don’t get in to sixth form by getting at least 6’s they can be scooped up by the fee paying) and happy children.
So if removing charitable status or paying VAT or removing grammars means more schools can be like this one so that there is a parity for all members of society then it’s a yes from me.

Do people who think this is a good idea think Labour would get enough votes to be elected if it were in the manifesto? I don’t think it would be popular with anyone working in a private school, privately educated or with kids at private school and that is a lot of votes Labour would have to do without. In the unlikely event Labour got elected and pursued this policy private schools would presumably avoid putting up fees by reducing the number of bursaries for the less well off meaning more state school places would be needed using up the funds generated by the tax.

Excellent idea. The very rich can easily afford it and don’t think it will make it unaffordable for many. If it does then those private schools that are struggling could do more for their parents to bring fees down. Eg. Not serve lobster at lunch or have ridiculously expensive school uniforms, extend their school terms so less needs to be spent on holiday childcare, sell off some of their many, many sports fields. My sympathy for private schools is very limited

You are just a resented person. I bet you lush after that lifestyle.

@Placido - but what is the average house price next to your school? We would all love to have that as an option.

What baffles me is that the response to private schools being better than state schools is to want them to close, rather than trying to raise state schools to their level (at which point private schools would naturally close anyway).
And if we aren’t allowed to pay for schooling, why should we be allowed to pay for healthcare? Or music lessons? Or football coaching?
If education can’t be a charity then why should scouts and guides, or d of e, or youth music groups? They are all things we pay for, largely middle class or ‘elitist’ but deemed worthy of charitable status.

So long as a decent proportion of that money goes into SEN provision, especially where independent SEN schools would be impacted, then in fine with it.

I don’t think this alone would get labour elected. It part of a narrative I’ve though and I think it’s just a reasonable, sensible, progressive, proportionate idea.

@myrtilles which is why I am much more interested to hear outloud the rumoured Boris ideas about how to get elected for his second term and level up education for his enormous red wall following. Suspect they are going to be equally annoying to the teeny tiny minority of parents and teachers who are involved in the private sector.

What will happen to schools for children with SEN? Lots of those are independent schools.

Labour focusing on the important stuff as usual. This crops up from them periodically, a lot with their children in private school are higher rate tax payers anyway yet don't use the state schools of which their tax goes towards, being double taxed effectively sounds fun; let's hope they jump ship to state schools and see how an influx of more children helps the already crumbling system.

@LizziesTwin

What will happen to schools for children with SEN? Lots of those are independent schools.

I would hope the scheme would treat specialist schools differently. Starmer has prob already specified that but none of us have read the details have we 😉