Independent schools and Labour government

[Turquoisesilver]

Has it actually been outlined what the proposals are? I believe there would effectively be a 20% fee increase, is that correct?

That should be 'priced' out - bloody autocorrect.

The rest of the private sector has learned to live without secretaries since at least the turn of the millennium. Even managing directors at global investment banks pick up the phone, sort their own schedules, travel alone, etc.

I am all for private sector as I used to believe that they will drive efficiency better, as it is in their own interest. Now that I have read your message, I am not sure anymore if it is worth saving (I am guessing you work in admin). It sounds extremely privileged to claim that teachers need the support of secretaries to organise trips, in addition to all of their holidays and fee reductions for their children and afternoons off while kids study.

Headmasters at 200k? Definitely not an absolute necessity. Far from it. Whichever school I liked, was in spite of (not because) of its headmaster. In any case it is musical chair business, without much added value.

No, I'm a parent at a private school and I have a couple of close friends who teach in private schools. My observation (and from talking to them) is that there is very little 'slack' - they work very hard (and yes they organise trips), and they certainly don't have secretaries sitting around twiddling their thumbs! But private schools offer a lot more stuff (in some ways) than the state sector, and parents' expectations are very high, and all of that 'stuff' takes a lot of work/time to provide. If you think teachers are swanning around having afternoons off, in either the state or private sector, then you're dreaming - one of the 'costs' of teaching in the private sector is all the evening and weekend commitments. I'm not saying there aren't efficiencies that can be made - many have presumably already had to be made to cope with inflation, TPS rises etc - but if there are still many schools with lots of under-occupied teachers and sectaries swilling around, I'd be very surprised. Of course, they can cut the 'stuff' that they offer, or provide a less silver service to parents, but if they lose students as a result then they're cutting their income.

Then I think we’re on the same page. Protect the teachers, the curriculum, the extra-curriculars and pupil affordability, and focus on cutting everything else. To me that means cutting down on admin and energy efficiency.

I think a lot of schools have quite old fashioned terminolgy for their non teaching staff which gives an odd view of what they do.

But teachers are busy teaching and dont have time to negotiate energy contracts and organise retrofitting an historic building to make it more energy efficient and source solar panels or wind turbines, getting through planning etc.

No, that’s for admin. But you as an owner of a house would also outsource renovation works, while carrying on with your full time job. Schools would do the same, if they were managed well. It does require some admin staff, but nowhere near the numbers many of these schools keep on the roll today.

I'm not sure why you're in a position to know whether their admin staff are under-employed, to be honest. Lots of private schools will run a huge programme of sporting events, music and drama events, conferences, commercial hires, holiday courses, loads of trips etc. They don't have the resources of academy chains or local authorities to help with things like HR, estate management, health and safety, compliance etc, so they'll be doing all that themselves. Plus all the marketing and admissions that state schools don't need to do (on anything like the same scale). Organising all of those things, for a large workforce, often with extensive school grounds and historic buildings, must take a huge amount of admin resource. And things like increasing class sizes (even if you won parents over) might be practically very difficult - a lot of buildings simply won't have rooms big enough (or enough furniture or IT) to accommodate much larger classes, so you'd need to put in a huge amount of investment to make it possible.

Of course, lots of parents will think that all of this 'stuff' is unnecessary and a waste of money, and that's a totally valid view - in which case they presumably won't be sending their kids to private schools.

So your solution is to increase fees until perpetuity? Families organise these kinds of events all the time for themselves (weekend trips, etc), and they don’t need to hire an event organiser as it is not such a big deal as the ‘admin’ community makes it out.

The problem is that many of these private schools behave much like the public sector: not an ounce of efficiency, as they just pass all the cost on to the taxpayer (or in this case the parent) without even attempting to THINK about efficiency, let alone driving it.

There are limits to affordability though. Having listened to your thoughts about unlimited spending needs, I will not be too concerned anymore if the sector prices itself out of the market (and I am a private school parent). Maybe it’s deserved.

Organising a weekend trip for your family is utterly different from organising a school trip, with all the complex requirements around safeguarding, health and safety etc (regardless of whether state or private). Ask any teacher in any sector how much work goes into a school trip and how much stress they cause.

No, of course fees can't rise exponentially - but they'll rise a bit (like every other cost at the moment), and savings will have to be made. The only way in which I'm disagreeing with you is in thinking that these savings are easy or obvious. Tbh if you think that teachers have afternoons off, and you choose schools 'in spite of' the head, and you think your fees are paying for masses of unnecessary 'secretaries', then I can't fathom why you send your children to a private school.

No need to get personal, or to make an elephant out of a molehill. Times have changed, and what passed 10 years ago is obviously not sustainable anymore. My observation is that parents are at their limits, the private schools are pricing themselves out, but continue to look for excuses instead of adjusting. It’s all very sad for the sector as a whole.

I'm not trying to be personal, sorry, I just don't understand why you'd pay for something you're not happy with, or for a school you think is basically fleecing you. But I agree, it will be interesting to see where things stand in ten years' time. I think schools will have to work harder to prove their value while simultaneously spending less money, which will be challenging. But it's also going to depend on what happens in the state sector - if that doesn't improve, then many people will still manage to find the money for private education, even if it's harder than it used to be. It may be that the better schools become even more oversubscribed, while the weaker ones fail - if the fees are harder to find, then you're surely only going to pay them if you think the school is really worth it.

One of the ways some private schools are saving money is by withdrawing from the Teacher Pension Scheme. This may, of course, have the knock-on effect of making it harder to recruit teachers as the pension scheme, although less generous than it once was, is one of the more attractive things about the job.

Demanding affluent parents don’t drive up the quality of state education. They produce demanding offspring who become the alphas at school and benefit from everything the already good state school offers - they are in the sports teams, top sets, drama productions etc.
It is the children in the middle who struggle in state classes of 30 plus and many of their parents (and the ones with SEN) work hard to opt out of this survival of the fittest system.
Putting fees up will drive these people away from independent schools so you will a) get very elitist schools with poor diversity - likely universities will have to recognise this more than now with their admissions … so even wealthy families will question the merit of independent or more likely their children will go to university in the US
b) state sector will have to massively up its game to cater for those Labour is claiming to be acting on behalf of. Class sizes need to be smaller and more opportunities for all, not just the ‘best’. Ironically independent schools have so many sports teams that everyone gets a go. State schools are much more elitist!

The policy is entirely political as it is a very visible “left wing” thing to do and palatable to most middle class voters too.

If Labour were serious about education though all they need to do is improve standards and class sizes in the state sector to the point that private as an option is the absolute exception.. ie not rational for the vast majority.

This will happen even more. My kids are at a private school and I work to help pay. We will move house to where there is a good secondary and I will quit work to help my children. I currently work for a trust of 8 state schools- the teachers are doing the best they can already- pushy parents won’t make a difference. I would use any extra money for tutors and extra curricular.

or I would homeschool- I’m sure this will be the next best thing and private school parents will club together to pay teachers and use their houses for classes.

Most of the people who are for it are people who have made sure their houses are in the catchment of the best schools- pricing the poorest out of the best schools- same difference.

the state schools around me have knife crime and lots of children with English as a foreign language with 30 plus in a school and children moving in and out of the year. Very unlike the Northampton village school my friends kids go to with 12 kids in a class- all whose parents were born in the UK and hence their kids speak fluent English. If they want to get rid of private schools access than they need to level the playing field. I have no grammars in my catchment- whereas others have a plethora to choose from. Ps my husband and I are both state educated ( I was at a selective grammar) and we have worked hard to be able to afford Private school education- I intended to send my kids state for primary but was dismayed at the local schools despite their outstanding OFSTED status.

We will move house to where there is a good secondary and I will quit work to help my children.

I keep hearing variations of this, but I honestly don't know anybody who chooses to be a stay-at-home mother in order to "intensively parent my secondary-school-age children." I'm calling the bluff of those claiming they will actually do this.

If you quit work, how will you pay the additional cost of moving to an area with a better state secondary (which will cost more), plus the cost of all these enrichment activities and tutors?

I've no doubt that we will see a lot more parents doing "state school plus tutoring etc." in lieu of private, but I'd be very surprised if more than a tiny number of women actually quit their jobs as part of the process.

I would and so would many well educated parents I know. I can ‘tutor’ my kids myself to gcse. The amount of money we would save by not paying private school fees would more than offset this. I would get tutors at gcse if required, again from all the money saved from not paying the school fees- and instead utilising the £7k schools receive for each pupil- that before we would not see any of sending our kids to private school.
We would sell our expensive house and it would actually be cheaper to move to the area where there are good grammar schools (I’ve already looked). Instead I would become a governor for charities and eventually private companies and spend most of my time having fun!!

the very well off who have trusts and grandparents paying fees, won’t be impacted and the class divide will widen even more with this stupidly thought out policy.

I for one would not pressure teachers to be better, I’d just do it myself- why should I help others when they don’t want to help my children do better.

I think that Labour might see it as desirable for there to be the kind of redistribution of wealth that follows from one household opting to reduce its income, and the employment that's being relinquished being taken up by someone else

The person taking up the job will already be highly skilled and well paid! It will create a skill shortage and damage the economy. It’s not a form of social mobility.

I know mothers who are only working to pay the school fees as otherwise the family could live entirely off the father’s earnings. They’ve said they’ll take their kids out if VAT is applied as have many others. I’m really unsure how this is going to play out.

Universities aren't stupid. Private school up to Y11 and then state is clearly seen as gaming.

Perhaps the universities are “in on the game?”