Private school fees

[studentandparent]

Labour will scrap charitable status on private school fees when next in Government. Anyone got any idea how much this will increase fees?

I'm not disputing natural variances in intelligence. But in schools which stream (state or otherwise) having a cohort of cleverer kids doesn't help the less intelligent. We need policies that reduce inequality BEFORE children get to school - higher welfare benefits which allow children increased nutrition and cultural capital, better quality housing, less emphasis on Douala income households, reducing fuel poverty and tackling period poverty etc.

Placing 'blame' on private schools and the parents who use them fails to tackle the real causes of inequality in education and life generally.

@Mizzlesticks you misunderstand me. I don't assume that you are not affluent at all. I expressed myself badly. When I talked about people being 'anti wealth' what I mean is anti symbols of wealth. That's really the point I was trying to make - that private education has become the symbol of unfair privilege, in spite of it being only one of countless ways of buying privilege. In fact, some of the most vociferously anti private parents I've met are those who are considerably wealthier than me but have chosen to send their children to grammar schools instead of private schools. That's why (I think) Labour are pushing this policy - not because it will actually make financial sense, but because it's a symbolic kick in the teeth to 'privilege', which will appeal not only to those who can't afford private education, but also to those who could, but who have decent state options available and have decided to spend their wealth on other things instead.

Sometimes private education is about choice- one option for all isn’t going to serve every child’s best interests, even if that option is the best it can be. I realise it is a tremendous privilege to have choices, I wish there were more non-paying options than the one size fits all approach of uk schools. My choice was to send my non-academic, likely SEN child to a non-selective school where lessons are proactively adapted and where a child’s worth is more than a certain set of exam results.

We don’t send our kids to private school to run in elite circles - outside of the ultra elite schools you are mostly looking at upper middle class families with little to offer network wise. I have no Oxbridge expectations, nor do I expect there to be a material difference in exam results. I do expect them to love school , to find areas of study they are passionate about, and to build a robust, broad set of skills that will see them through life regardless of career path.

my state school option is outstanding, but wouldn’t be the best for my child. Options should be encouraged in education; opting out of mainstream shouldn’t be penalised.

Part of being a charity is that you do not hold any profits but reinvest to meet the objectives of the organisation - in this case educating children.
This is in contrast to businesses, which can make and bank profits, have shareholders etc.

I would be interested to know whether removing charitable status actually does translate to an increase in 20% fees. Salaries are VAT exempt and the bulk of fees go on this; education equipment I think are also VAT exempt so that doesn’t leave much to add VAT onto.

I think you misunderstand how VAT works. If VAT was to be charged on private school fees then 20% would be added to the whole cost. As you say, much of a private school's cost base (its 'inputs') is outside the scope of VAT, but this would not affect the VAT charge on the service it is providing to it's pupils (its 'outputs').

A VAT-registered business charges VAT on its (VAT-able) outputs and recovers VAT that it has been charged on its (VAT-able) inputs. It then pays over to HMRC (or recovers from HMRC) the difference between the VAT it has collected from its customers and the VAT it has paid to its suppliers. In the end the supply of goods/services ends up with a consumer who can not pass the VAT on to anyone else further down the chain. This consumer then pays the entire cost of VAT passed down the supply chain from beginning to end.

An organisation that charges lots of VAT, but doesn't pay much VAT to its suppliers would simply end up paying loads of this VAT each quarter to HMRC.

Would be interesting to see how they would apply VAT to only private school fees versus applying it to university fees, or to state schools' costs (many of which - Academies - are actually private businesses in exactly the same way as e.g. Eton is.

It keeps coming up on this thread that some posters believe they are subsidising other people's private school fees.

If you believe this, please could you explain why you think this, and in what way you believe you're subsiding private school fees?

Because you're not.

It’s the other way around - ppl paying fees are subsidising the state sector (via their unused places). And they tend to pay a lot of tax too.

The money raised from VAT on charity-run school fees will be nowhere near enough to either:

1. force all private schools to close - some will remain and become very exclusive and elite

2. pay for all the extra state school places required, esp in London where land is extremely expensive

3. stop house prices near grammar schools and good comps doubling, meaning that inequality within the state system gets much worse. (Many well to do Labour voters happy to see private schools abolished already live in these areas so will be among the prime financial beneficiaries of course…)

4. Make up for loss of tax revenue and FX from foreign nationals coming to the UK for our private school system.

It’s a perfect example of a spiteful policy (totally ineffective, probably counter productive but will make a small number of people feel better for a little while).

You are ignoring that the state already heavily subsidised fee-paying schools by training their staff. In Scotland that training is still free.

@antelopevalley “heavily subsidises”???
That’s a rather desperate statement. You are only talking about a small number of non Scottish people who choose to do a PGCE in Scotland and then choose to go into the private sector. And ignoring:

• Fees for a one year PGCE in Scotland (if you are not Scottish) are less than £10k, which is less than a single term’s fees for one child at a public school.
• you don’t actually need a PGCE to teach at a private school anyway….

I know private schools have staff that are not qualified but just have the right connections.

Do you? That’s a rather wide ranging statement.

Do you mean they aren’t qualified teachers? There’s no need to be. Perfectly possible to be a wonderful teacher without a PGCE.

If they're not qualified then presumably you didn't subsidise their training.

The privilege bought by going to private school is corrosive and deeply unfair

do you feel the same about private healthcare? What about tutoring? What about a child who attends lots of sporting activities out of school?

Why is it wrong for people to reject the free education and seek out whatever it is that suits them? What about people who would prefer a religious education, or for children with special needs who need a different environment that their local authority is unable to provide?

You are ignoring that the state already heavily subsidised fee-paying schools by training their staff

State school staff are also trained in private schools, at no extra cost to the state system or the tax payer.

Stop treating Private Schools as charities, that's all most people are asking for.

They are not Charities.

presume posters are just goady, saying that taxpayers are subsidising private education, when it is the other way around. Taxpayers, including private school parents, subsidise the state school system and don’t use it.

duh

@Alexandra2001 that’s not correct. People are asking for VAT on school fees which has nothing to do with private schools being charities. Education (including private schools) is currently VAT exempt. There are already private schools which are run as businesses and they are not required to charge VAT.

I know private schools have staff that are not qualified but just have the right connections
I know a wonderful teacher in a private school who doesn't have a PGCE. They are, however, an expert in their subject and very good at teaching it to students who largely want to be there and learn, with parents who value education. Would they be as good a teacher in a struggling school where a lot of children and parents don't value education? I don't think so.

Most of the state sector has unqualified staff teaching students as well, and the qualifications and experience of some of those people is worryingly low at times.

I would want my children taught by a qualified teacher. Teaching is not simply being an expert in your subject but having an ability to teach that knowledge. And the teachers in my kids state school are qualified.

Why do you think a PGCE makes such a difference? A PhD student will gain plenty of teaching experience during their time at university and do fine in a private school where discipline is less of an issue. I know of several teachers at private schools with PhD in their subjects that are brilliant teachers - a teaching qualification doesn't really have any meaning in that context. I would far rather my DC had someone with a PhD and a real enthusiasm for the subject teaching them than a qualified state school teacher with an art degree teaching maths (as was the case in my local state school).

@Unicorn1919 I have worked with many academics most of whom had PHD's. Many were spectacularly bad at explaining their subject matter to anyone who did not already understand it.
I understand that if your children are being taught by unqualified teachers you may have to justify to yourself why you are paying for that. But understanding the pedagogy of teaching does make a real difference to quality of teaching.

I would want my children taught by a qualified teacher. Teaching is not simply being an expert in your subject but having an ability to teach that knowledge. And the teachers in my kids state school are qualified
Some people without PGCEs are great teachers and some people with PGCEs are poor teachers.
Some academics with doctorates are fabulous as lecturers and others have terrible communication skills.

I've got friends working in the independent sector without a PGCE who I'd happily have teach my DC, and I've worked with qualified teachers in the state sector who I'd not want to teach my DC. I've also worked with many excellent teachers in the state system.

It's a lot more nuanced than you seem to suggest.

It is nuanced I agree. Training does not itself make a great teacher. But a lack of understanding of educational pedagogy would in most cases have a negative impact.

But my point is it shouldn't be allowed. If schools were allocated by lottery, and there was a chance you'd get a "bad" one, a lot more people would be interested in improving all schools.

I'm well aware in some areas of the country it is a reality.

That's why I said "if that were changed".

But are they subject specialists?

I would actually go for an unqualified subject specialist, over a qualified teacher who was not a subject specialist.

But as others have said, it does depend on the individual. And long term (state or private) you don't get decent staff by paying peanuts.