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?

You are absolutely right but sadly there are votes to be gained from the politics of envy by being seen to punish the rich.

As you say if it raises a billion at best then this is only 1% of the education budget (and less than 1% of the interest bill on Gov debt). So it will make no difference to state education and that's assuming the full billion goes to the education budget.

For those saying that there are falling birth rates and, therefore, more state school places available, that’s correct. However, I suspect that all these spare places are not at the decent state schools. There will always be a squeeze on places at decent state schools, which will only get worse with the the imposition of VAT on fees. Parents won’t just settle for the local underperforming comp - they’ll fight for the best places.

The best way to deal with the disparity in education is to massively improve the state system. Many parents would happily choose state over private if they actually had a decent school nearby. Sadly, many don’t. Parents are not shelling out tens of thousands of pounds a year for the fun it - they often do it because the state alternative isn’t suitable for their child. Yes, there are some great state schools. There are far too many abysmal ones though.

Arguably there is a greater disparity between the lowest and highest performing state schools than there is between the decent state schools and the private sector.

So a charity has an aim or a purpose. For schools it is normally 'education in england and wales"

Then you have to say who benefits. So lets say girls, aged 11-18 who can do art or children with ASD.

You then have to focus on doing that. You dont make a profit for shareholders. Any surplus goes back into the charitable aim. The trustees have to comply with the charity commissions things like their finacial controls.

Then there is the public benefit requirement which people tend to think about a lot with private schools. As how csn the public benefit from something they cant afford. This is why private schools offer bursaries, facility share, do outreach etc to justify the public benefit.

My son goes to an SEN school that is a private business not a charity. It means the proprietor doesnt have to plough all the fee back into the business. (The LA pays the fees) Its a totally different structure really.

With a falling birth rate etc we can absorb them into the state sector

The locations where there are most private schools aren't the same locations where there are empty school places.

Same as the places with plentiful/cheap housing aren't the places where people want to live nor where there are jobs.

I have heard more from the Labour Party about punishing private schools attended by 6% of children than I have about how they are planning to improve the education system for the remaining 94%. The policy is more about winning votes than caring about the education which the majority of our children receive.

Nurseries are also exempt from VAT.

Now not all parents can afford to send their young children to nurseries which is unfair- so should VAT also be applied to nursery fees?

Also if Labour make changes to the visa and immigration system (which I would welcome!), London should become a more attractive place to live again and those school rolls will soon fill back up.

@Another76543

The policy is more about winning votes than caring about the education which the majority of our children receive.

+++

True but judging by the responses in this post it's a policy that will get them votes.

Maybe if our politicians had no choice but to send their kids to a state school they would have more incentive to provide adequate funding to them!

Yes it should be applied to nursery fees. Unfortunately though that won’t be a vote-winner and people will come up with a stack of reasons why it’s “unfair”. It’s not “fair” that privileged children get to go to excellent nurseries whilst others don’t get the enjoy the benefits of that.

My brother looked into pre-paying at his kids school, the school said yes happy to have your money however if the fees go up you’ll have to pay the difference. They went up 8% this year and 6% last year.

Yes, many schools still expect you to pay some or all of the future increase in fees. However, pre-paying fees can save any potential VAT (depending on how the school invoice parents).

It’s because they won’t have the funding

And this is a good way to get people going despite that

Why would they want to do that? Would you pay extra for something you don't want to use but you're forced to?

They'll pay for tutors for their children and other educational advantage. They'll buy houses next to the best schools and drive out those who are just about able to afford them. Maybe they'll put something extra into those schools thereby creating private schools in all but name. In 11+ areas even more children will be squeezed out by those who've had expensive tutors and might otherwise have gone to private schools.

I think it’s a disgrace that the Labour Party are pretending that taxing private school fees will solve the problems of the state system when this is simply not the case. The tax raised won’t even scratch the surface. Sadly, many people seem to falling for their claims though.

Investing money is one thing, but parents wouldn’t likely have much of a say in how it’s actually spent would they?

Question - My state catchment schools had horrendous issues with crime and bullying. How would money solve this?

As the reports are suggesting, parents are probably not going to suddenly take their children out of private schools should this policy come in. However, many will change over to the state sector at natural transition points of 5/7/11/16. They will use their funds to buy into better catchment areas and children who live that slight bit further away will be deprived of a place.

We have 2 DC in prep at the moment and will definitely be moving into catchment of a good state secondary if this happens. We are comfortable paying primary school fees, secondary would be a stretch but possible without VAT. Adding 20% compromises our quality of life too much and state plus tutoring would be way forward.

The immediate sudden increase in income from the VAT is going to steadily decrease as more and more go for the state sector. Not sure how they will be funding state education without the increase in income they were relying on

The most depressing thing of all is how Labour successfully shoot themselves in the foot with some manifesto they believe appeals to the masses but actually loses them voters. They all revolve around creating a perception of taxing the rich. It has lost them two elections already

We really need to get rid of the current government!

@Desecratedcoconut I didn't describe state schools as a shit tip. People do not move internationally to attend our state schools - they do for private. Our private schools are well known as successful internationally. Making those schools less accessible to the Brits who live here does not benefit this country. It will mean more international students. Our state schools have been starved of money. On average they have much bigger classes a much narrower curriculum and frankly dire facilities. We have teacher leaving the state system in droves. Forcing more children into a failing system benefits no one. It's a disappointing cheap stance from Labour and I say that as a life long Labour voter!

But they don't pay any VAT at the moment as a charity so the fact they can claim back the VAT they will pay out after they are VAT registered will have no net impact. They will still have to charge full VAT to parents - there is nothing to offset that cost.

And how does that make it a charity please? A lot of the time, as a quick google will show, it’s actually so they can get smarter students. Not for the plebs.

charity
/ˈtʃarɪti/

noun

1. an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.

I’ve added the definition of charity to help you.

Well they clearly meet the definition/legalities of being a charity as they wouldn't have obtained and kept their charitable status otherwise. Perhaps you should be campaigning for a change in the rules as to what constitutes a charity??

By the way your use of a dictionary to define a charity is wrong. What matters is what the law/Act of Parliament defines as a charity, not a random dictionary. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25#:~:text=Charity-,1Meaning%20of%20%E2%80%9Ccharity%E2%80%9D,jurisdiction%20with%20respect%20to%20charities.

And includes:

"(b)the advancement of education;"

I’m the parent of a private/independent school escapee. Frankly, all the hype is nothing. A good state school does what a good independent school does.

Paying money doesn’t vouchsafe your child’s happiness or give parents much say in anything. Many private schools only want easy teach, middle of the road kids. Some want academic kids. Both these kinds of children will thrive in a good state school. Sporty kids can get a lot out of being at an independent sector school. However, at age 7, 3 afternoons of sport, shorter terms … you may wonder if enough learning is going on. When mine left a traditional prep school his maths was behind. He’d been treated as a nuisance because he’s bright.

Yeah, abolish them all including grammar schools. Re the latter it’s not 1965!

I’d be interested to know your attitude towards private health care?

It is bizarre to see the poor thinking of those who cheer lead these policies.
Simultaneously, no one will move from private to state with the price rise, but also state schools will get much better because all the pupils who move will lead to the parents donating the fees they would have paid to the state sector (rather then paying for private tuition for their own children).

Private schools always have excess demand, despite the falling birth rate so smaller year groups and the 1990s recession seeing falling private enrolment.
The increase is barely anything (paid by 7% of the population) but will be massive when put in the state sector (93% of the population).

The bankrupt private schools (that also won’t happen), will be bought up by state schools (with money from thin air) and suddenly be appropriate for use by the state sector but not require any maintenance…

The poorest will benefit from a massive expansion of social mobility, as they are displaced from the best schools by the ex-private pupils with their sharp elbows.
Fees can increase endlessly as there is not limiting factor, look the fees went up by 7% last year against inflation of [checks notes…] oh, 8.3%…

Private schools are the cause of inequality in the country yet the likes of Tony Blair sent their kids “state” and some how are worth hundreds of millions in their 30s… Yep it is definitely the private education.

Private schools are profit making commercial enterprises, and those that are charities are sending their profits too [checks notes…], well any way...