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?

Precisely. Individual parents will always and should always make decisions in the best interests of their children. This will probably involve sending them to private school if they can afford it because attending private school makes them statistically significantly more likely to get into a good university and a top job.

But politics should be bigger than this and make decisions in the interests of everyone in society. Society as a whole will benefit from a more meritocratic system overall and politicians should start to work towards this.

“I do think people buying into private education should be ashamed of themselves because they are perpetuating this gross inequality. Maybe you never gave it a second thought, but you should”
Just to clarify you genuinely believe that parents should look at the current system as it is and actively make decisions that are not in their children's best interests?
You actually think that parents should send their children to schools that will not educate their children appropriately, or that have long standing issues of terrible school culture and poor behaviour despite having the ability to offer their child a safe and calm learning environment, and if they don't do that they should be ashamed?

that poster is too busy being sanctimonious and congratulating themselves on being a better person than everyone else to have thought through the practical implications of the nonsense they’re talking.

I’m state educated and have kids in state school. I want to try to improve the state system but not by trying to tear down the more advantaged people. There is so much more to privilege and success than being in a private school.

@MintJulia You made the original comparison. Private schools serve to educate those who can pay their fees. That is their purpose. Letting the state school have access to the swimming pool once a week really does not justify it being a charity.

DS2’s school is on a site of historical interest and it does have members of the public in at certain times on weekends and during school holidays. State schools can and do use the facilities and go there for school trips, bizarre as that may sound. It also hosted the Antiques Roadshow a few years ago!

Charitable status is really a non issue anyway. Many private schools are privately owned businesses that don't have charitable status. Those that have opted for charitable status have to spend their surplus income on educational projects anyway.

The VAT issue is something different. Under EU laws, the supply of any form of education is exempt from VAT. Obviously we can now change our own laws but I am not sure where the Labour Party proposes to draw the line. Will they assess all educational supplies as VATable by removing the current exemption? Universities and special schools too, all educational books and materials? I am not sure that is what the public want.

That’s just not the case though is it? Why am I asked to gift aid practically every admission fee I pay from the local farm to stately homes? So it’s ok to donate a fixed amount to the local petting zoo so they can claim charitable status? How about when I rehome a pet for over a hundred pounds? When I make a charitable donation in return for advertising?
I think you’re misunderstanding what the definition of a charity is in the uk

It’s 20% at sixth form so over 20% will have attended at some point.

do you really think it’s private schools that are the difference? Do you think Joe bloggs on an academic scholarship at Eton has the same outcome as the landed aristocracy? Correlation is not causation.

@cazbo55

I hate to break it to you but even in so-called Communist countries where everything is supposed to be equal there are privileged elites -but it’s your family connections and their political beliefs which determine whether you are allowed access to the best schools and universities.

As for Finland - it is no different there. About 3% of Finns are privately educated (compared to about 7-8% in the UK). The rest have parents who use their wallets to move close to the “best”state schools if they possibly can, just like parents do in the US, UK and everywhere else.

And yes Finnish schools do well on many (not all)
educational measures but that’s not because they don’t have many private schools. It’s because Finland is ethnically and culturally homogenous and because all teachers are paid a fortune (by our standards). Neither of which circumstance will happen in the UK by abolishing private schools.

Ole hyva

BoardingSchoolMater? Bit of a giveaway, isn't it?

No shit, Sherlock (for want of an original riposte).

If independent schools didn't exist, then selection-by-catchment would prevail instead. If I hadn't been able to send my children to the schools of my choosing, I'd have bought a house in a good catchment area instead, thereby taking several places from other children by buying a house instead of paying school fees. I'd also have saved myself a fortune, and would have an ever-increasing asset to pass on to my children.

That's the way it works, if you can afford to have choices. You may not like this, but it's true. @Cazbo55

<twirls>

<pretends we're back on MN in 2003>

As you were.

People would send their children to state school though. We would if there was a rise of £5000 per child. We are certainly not rich people. Neither are most parents at our school. We are people who really value education and prioritise it over other things. We do not have rich family to step in as we are both working class. Of course there would be a strain on state schools, there are plenty of people like us on the independent system.

What we would do is buy a house in the catchment area of a good state school.

Our school, like many others has no one creaming in any profits. All money is invested into the school. There are no shareholders, no owner making a fortune. I don't see how it is a business when it is solely run for the purpose of educating the children. I think lots of people have no clue about the independent sector. They think it is all big public schools like Eton. However, that is just not the reality.

Sane for me. Actually, without school fees to pay for I think I would probably be a SAHM and wouldn't be paying any tax at all.

My two children both go to a private school that specialises in teaching children with additional needs such as autism, anxiety and so on. My eldest is funded by his EHCP. My youngest started secondary in state grammar school, was assessed as being in their top 5% of pupils academically but was fast approaching a breakdown due to their attitude by October half term- panic attacks etc. I know he will never get EHCP because his intelligence allows him to mask very effectively in school, but if he had to go back into mainstream school, we would be back to the panic attacks, self harm and school refusal. Half of the pupils at the school are funded by EHCP, the other half are like my son. This school is not posh, not expensive, not super facilities, not academically outstanding but it is a literal life saver for so many pupils. Please don’t judge all private school parents.

I was talking to a friend about this yesterday. I'd say half my son's class is made up of ND children. Either those with EHCPs funding the place or like your son, where parents are making sacrifices due to state school not being able to meet the needs of ND kids who mask. Again, our school isn't posh or fancy. It's just small and individual focused.

Good lord, so many in this thread spouting utter drivel about how the tax payer is somehow 'subsidising' private schools. Imagine thinking this?

The reality is of course the complete opposite.

A total of £0 of tax payer funds go towards private education - nothing. Around £7,000 per year of tax payer funds goes towards the state education of each child.

So we have a situation where the ones who generally pay more than the average person in tax, AND who are also saving the state a further £7,000 per year by not using the state system, AND are having around another 10% of their fees distributed to other families as bursaries and scholarships, are then being asked to pay ANOTHER 20% on top of that because the mob have deemed their kids are doing too well and need to be knocked down a peg or two.

The private sector has been utterly spineless in fighting its corner over this issue which is why the lunatics keep coming back to push for more and more.

No one is under any illusions that this will bring the overall level of education in this country down, even those who think that knee-capping those who can just about afford private education is in some way just.

So well put, bravo. And for all those cheerleaders for this - watch out for VAT on piano lessons and Uni fees...!

Yep it’s ridiculous

@bogoffeternal completely agree with everything you have said!

I grew up in Switzerland where teachers are paid a good wage and most are also intelligent. The education system there is well funded, but it is also selective either at 11 plus or 13/14 plus depending on the canton.

Labour caused the private school boom by scrapping grammar schools in most areas. The whole comp idea just does not work optimally nor do the Mickey Mouse uni courses that are on offer in some areas.

The Swiss education system works because it caters to all children and does not force not academic children to go down a too academic path. Rather, they are celebrated for their talents and get ample opportunity to go into highly skilled apprenticeships. There are also pathways to transfer later on. In addition, taking an academic route does not mean you will be paid better than if you go down the apprentice route.

A lot of the National Curriculum is too academic for many children. It makes no sense to make kids attend school for 14 years if they would be better of doing other stuff.

The job market and Education is very linked. The problem in this country is that some people are overpaid and others vastly underpaid. That creates resentment. The underpaid also do not pay enough tax and are all too happy for the overpaid to have to fork out more and more in taxes. A more equal system for all would be much better.

Will they though? They'll think about it for a few months, do the maths, get some proper predictions about how many kids will move from private to state, realise that they haven't got places for them all, realise that quite a lot of their older Labour voters (and Labour MPs) educate their kids privately, and kick it into the long grass.

I'm not so sure. As PP said it's idea idealogical, good legislation had little to do with its. It's red meat to their left wing like the hunting ban - irrespective of the actual impact on fox numbers!

fee.org/articles/how-the-uk-s-2004-ban-on-fox-hunting-led-to-a-catastrophic-decline-in-the-fox-population/

Also VAT will mean schools can claim back VAT for various things, friend who is a bursar says would be nowhere near a 20% increase

The change in VAT consequent on charitable status (which, remember, not all schools have in the first place) is estimated to be worth about £200 per pupil per term (that figure's is a few years old now, but won't have risen that much). I think that'll be absorbed

The 20% figure comes from the separate policy of applying VAT to fees (all pre-schools, schools and university fees are currently exempt - not just zero-rated) and that assumes that it would be applied at the full standard rate from the off

The whole issue is being used by Labour as tinsel to burnish their left-wing credentials but it's far from the most pressing issue in education. Much wider reforms are needed and much more money than this would raise is needed to fund them.
There are 600 state schools with buildings in danger of structural collapse, tens of thousands of kids coming to school hungry, and a return of Victorian diseases (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/health-fitness/13-victorian-diseases-making-comeback-28047158)
Of course we should end the charitable status of these schools. They're not charities. And of course we should put VAT on the fees. VAT is for luxury, non-essential goods and services and private schooling is a luxury.

This is only a small part of the reforms and investment needed to undo the damage of 13 years of austerity.

Labour should also learn from history. It was the dismantling of the grammar school system in the 70's and early 80's that led to the biggest boom in private education. In the mid-70s the percentage of kids who were privately educated was around 5%. By the mid-80's it had risen to 7% where it has stayed every since. People wanted a decent education for their kids: their perception was that the state system could no longer provide it, so they paid to get it elsewhere.
Something the Blair/Brown government understood was that if you want people to not opt out of the state school system, you actually have to make state schools better. It takes serious planning, funding and long-term commitment, not just a few headline measures to appease the Corbynistas.
You can't just tear down or attack the things you don't like - you have to build something better. I have not yet seen much sign of the necessary vision from the shadow cabinet, though I hope it materializes.

Is this all a plot to make home education the only viable option and the government don’t have to pay anything?