Is anyone else worried about the effect of rising private school fees on state schools?

[BabyIcecream]

Where I live there already aren't enough school places. Three big state secondary's, one is catholic, they are all over subscribed and bursting at the seams using old buildings with not enough funding.

Ive seen reports that at some private schools upto a third of pupils might leave if the fees go up due to VAT.

I'm worried about all these extra pupils needing places, DS already finds his school overcrowded and whilst I don't agree with private education putting extra pupils into the state system is just going to further disadvantage our children.

Unless money raised by increasing private schools costs is going to be used to fund state education? Does anyone know?

I have massively supported our state schools. I have gone in to cook, read, PTA, have supported financially at both primary and secondary level. However, my support does not translate to enough cash to pay teachers a fair wage and free them from the shackles of Ofsted bashing them in and all the paperwork, enough cash to deal with the leaking toilets, crappy 70s building, crappy canteen and I am also not a counsellor or nurse to deal with all the mental health issues that a lot of kids are experiencing - made far worse by the fact that the NHS is failing children in general. And not to get started on the huge waiting lists for extra support for kids who need it and the years of appeals people need to get through to get a special school place for their kids. If you have no funds or higher education, try doing one of those appeals for your DC.
Grammars/private schools etc all stuff on the margins anyway.
In addition, the key point is that stressed out teachers make for a crappy environment for DCs to grow up in. The mental health of teachers and them being supported properly is really important. That was the only aspect of private school that I liked. The teachers seemed much more relaxed and happier, on the whole. What I did not like was that they appeared to me a law on to themselves. And safeguarding - so I chose state school for my DC and not working full time. Obviously, I am very privileged to have been able to make that choice.

What I would like is for those 16 plus to get a vote. If a 92 year old can vote, a 16 year old also needs to be able to vote and engage with the future. I would also really like a system where all men can take full maternity leave as well and share it. That would do a lot for equality if employers know the dads can also be off and request part time work. Looking after our elderly properly and with respect if very important but do to the voting system our parties are too focussed on them at the moment. It is causing problems.

I think you’re right about pricing out the less wealthy. At my daughter’s selective private day school in London the majority of girls come from modest middle class families who make considerable sacrifices to send their daughters there: these are not rich people! It is a myth that these schools are full of the wealthy elite, particularly private day schools. I also think Labour are making it an easier choice for those with bright kids to send them to state schools. The Oxbridge and university differentials aren’t so big. And they can also then afford to just get private tuition outside school to bump up the weak areas. I’d certainly consider switching since fees just keep rising, last year it was 6% and this year 10%, so if it is an extra 15-20% next year, Lord help us!

So you believe that private schools, particularly boarding schools, should be closed just because it didn’t suit your child? They are absolutely not all “toxic organisations”. Many children are extremely happy and thriving in these environments. Most parents choose private schools very carefully - what will suit one child will not suit another. If your child is struggling at a particular school, you are free to remove them and send them elsewhere.

Not all private schools are great in the same way that not all state schools are great. Plenty of state schools have dreadful behavioural and violence problems, along with bullying of those children who are different or who actually want to study hard - and, yes, our family does have personal experience of how awful some state schools can be. Why is no one arguing that those schools should be closed because they are “toxic”?

I am so relieved my eldest DD is finishing school this year as we definitely couldn't pay more. This would have been my worst nightmare.
The fees have been a huge weight but so worth it, as she has a permanent serious health condition that means she would have been unsafe in a busy state school,
( she has been in small Independent girls schools) and they have been spectacular at ensuring she has, despite many absences, been supported and cared for, and her academics maintained.
Without this education her life would have been very different. She started in a 'excellent' state school and it was unsustainable.
My other DD will move to State 6th form if Labour gets in next year, so one more school place taken up.
There WILL be many like us removing their children, the vast majority of private school parents l know make substantial sacrifices to pay fees. There is no bottomless pit.
I think this is a disastrous policy. Many more school places are needed, plus many more teachers and other resources...BEFORE flooding the system with more children all at once. Even a small increase will disadvantage local schools as stretched teachers try to cope.

@Grandjany so what are the fees at these schools, 15k, 20k a year? That's a lot of unnecessary expenditure in the first place to 'sacrifice'.

twistyizzy · Today 09:44

@sashh yet again why is it our responsibility to raise the standards in state schools? Why can't existing parents do that? Why do you think they will listen to private parents more than they listen to state parents?

@sashh are you going to answer twistyizzy’s question.
Not holding my breath.

“The tired comparison with private healthcare is fallacious. Private healthcare does not perpetuate and entrench lifelong inequality in the same way. VAT on fees is not only about raising the money, it is also about addressing that inequality.

Government, the judiciary, the legal profession, elite sport and so on are not populated by people simply because they had their tonsils out in a BUPA hospital.”

Private healthcare is actually worse. Many NHS consultants are working in the private sector on the side to top up their miserable wages. If you have something serious, you pay up and get your cancer cut out far earlier. It literally can buy you another 20 years life.

So you don’t think that being able to access quicker cancer treatment or new drugs not available on the NHS promotes inequality which impacts individuals’ quality of life? There are plenty of examples like this. What about children who are privileged enough to have parents who can access private ENT specialists? Children with impaired bearing for whatever reason are often failed by the NHS, falling behind in class work which has a lifelong impact. Those with more money can often access quicker and better treatment privately; of course that leads to lifelong inequality.

The Labour Party are arguing that VAT on school fees will improve the state system. Adding VAT onto private healthcare would, therefore, surely benefit the NHS.

Agree, being a medic was a generational thing in the past. When I studied, I was certainly in the minority coming from a non-medical family and also coming from a family without degree-educated parents.

Not one of my colleagues is encouraging their child to enter the medical field (myself included). We are treated with contempt by both the government and the public. Just look at the number of MN posters alone who believe medical graduates should be enslaved to the NHS for a fixed period of time with absolutely no consideration for the excessive unpaid hours they will work in the first 2 years alone.

I do hope the ride turns and they are well paid and respected in the future, sadly I have no hope it will be the case under the current government. In the meantime, the children of medics are going elsewhere

@Barbadossunset permit me to have a go then.

It is not a responsibility, it is simply more likely. That's because people who are not worrying about having no food, mental health issues, ill-health, and all the other issues associated with poverty, are more likely to have the time and skills to contribute to school improvement.

Which legions of state school parents are already doing of course.

@Another76543 yes I do, but the scale of it is not remotely comparable.

Exactly. Health is, surely, the most important thing which impacts quality of life and life chances. Why is no one interested in removing inequality there?

So you don’t think that receiving potentially life saving cancer treatment quicker impacts a person’s life chances more than going to a school which happens to be fee paying?

“Government, the judiciary, the legal profession, elite sport and so on are not populated by people simply because they had their tonsils out in a BUPA hospital.”

This statement is also very misguided. Rich people go into top government positions because they already have family money and can afford to not make a ton of cash as a politician. Politicians are not well paid. The same applies to judges, it is an honorary job and the pay is far worse than working in a top law firm as a partner. So the privileged and moneyed will always be attracted to these jobs because they already inherited a house and a trust fund. If you want the best people in politics, you need to pay them more as well and somehow manage the journalists. It is not a nice or well paid job - it is very hard, dirty and difficult.

Please do tell me how it addresses inequality. It will make private schools more elite with less middle class families being able to afford the fees and schools withdrawing bursaries and scholarships. Those families will then take up places in the best state schools, pushing out poorer families who can’t afford a home in the right catchment area.

Not all private schools are Eton. In fact, very few of them are. At my DC’s school hardly any of the parents went to private school themselves. I’m a lawyer…with a working class background, comprehensive school educated and had free school meals at one stage. My DH didn’t go to university. The VAT on fees will not impact Eton or similar schools. It will impact schools like my DC goes to and the families that send their children there.

Perkynuts thank you for answering my question.

I’m confused about this. Do you honestly think that, even if the full 6% of children who attend private schools moved to state, their parents will somehow make the state schools better equipped? Why are the 94% of parents not trying to achieve that already? Is the state system not better because the 94% of parents aren’t trying hard enough to force change?

“Exactly. Health is, surely, the most important thing which impacts quality of life and life chances. Why is no one interested in removing inequality there?”

Because it would lose some grey votes and also result in lower productivity because a lot of the higher paying tax payers use private health care which results in them getting back to work sooner and paying more tax. And they know the doctors are underpaid and have a shitty deal so this is a sweetener on the side. And nobody gives a shit if someone on benefits needs to wait for months for their treatment and dies earlier. Tough luck, you ain’t a contributor.

The state schools accommodated the pupils

But even today the people at the local state schools tutor their kids. It’s all about what families prioritise.

@perkynuts but as I've previously stated, private parents won't send their kids to sink state schools. They will go to the best state schools so there will be few parents having to face the challenges you've stated.
They will move house to buy in the catchment areas for the best schools.
Also there are many wealthy parents on here who choose state school already, why haven't they driven up standards?

@Heatherbell1978 you can take consolation from reminding yourself that the children of those chavvy botoxed families will be the people your family relies on for essential services. For example, when you might be in a care home in later life.

27K

@twistyizzy they have.

Now brace yourself for a shock.

In fact, there are many excellent comprehensive schools with very diverse demographics, where children do very well indeed. Some even go to Russell Group universities..... even Oxbridge!

@Grandjany got it. So if I make sacrifices and cut back on non-essentials to the extent of 27k per child per year, my children can go to those schools.