If labour win the election can they introduce VAT immediately?

[londonparent321]

(For school fees) Or do they need to go through the courts which could take years /never happen?

It’s also worth mentioning the 100% and 40% burseries will be gone and the 10% ones vastly reduced in numbers.
Schools will offset the saving in an attempt to not have to increase fees by 20% across the board.

For those who appreciate the circumstances behind who is offered these burseries this policy has unethical and illogical consequences.

Ahem...

Can we have a bit of peace and love please? If personal attacks continue past this point, it's likely to lead to a suspension.

Thanks!

But this means that 10 engaged, previously destined for private school pupils are now displacing 10 not previously destined for private school pupils.

DD's comprehensive used to be one that parents actively avoided. HT brought in a lottery entry, maths, music, art and sports scholarships, threw the kitchen sink at the middle classes. Now it's one of the most oversubscribed schools in the country and people living locally all complain because they can't get places at it. In order to even get on the lottery list you have to have parents engaged enough to take you to the school to sit the banding tests...

Between the aptitude test, the banding test and the lottery system it does a very good job of supplying engaged students with engaged parents.

I was delighted - our local schools are dire, so I spent years prepping DD for the aptitude tests and got one of the places there.

But I am fully aware that it there are plenty of children in the local area who don't now have a place at their local school because DD and many others like her do. And those in the local area who do also had parents who read the instructions carefully and cared enough to tick the boxes.

If a large number of children have to leave private education I would be willing to bet that a substantial proportion of those will be those with SEN whose parents were doing everything they could to manage fees. So state schools will be getting a disproportionate number of kids with additional needs - and SEN support in schools is already on its knees or non-existent.

@strawberrybubblegum I think many private schools give a broader education but if you look at some private schools and compare them with grammar schools, there can be very mixed outcomes at the private schools. They do not universally have the best teachers or value added.

As a result, many very well educated parents are more than happy with state schools and do find teaching good. We preferred to pay to get DDs access to what they were interested in readily. No running around to activities after school with homework to do. We found quite a few parents didn’t worry that much about exam results though. Some did and found tutors. Many let the school get on with it. It was more a way of life for them and they probably couldn’t remember a family member who was state educated! They just used private because that’s what their family did. It’s more cultural than necessarily believing dc get the best results.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow Sscholarships are, by definition, not the hallmark of a comprehensive school. Comprehensive means everyone. No selection. It’s a selective school. Other local kids are displaced when places go to the tutored (costs money) and chosen by aptitude that has been honed by money. Presumably a free school?

State comprehensive that takes 15% via aptitude places.

Well it’s not comprehensive then. It’s partially selective. That pushes other dc out.

Comprehensive schools that were already part of the aptitude test system are allowed to select a percentage of students via aptitude tests. They are still classed as comprehensive schools - there are very many of them in London.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow When comps were introduced they didn’t have aptitude tests. Everyone knew what they stood for. Now they select and call themselves comps. It’s clearly designed to boost “quality” of intake at the expense of others. I know they do it but it’s wrong.

You can't really blame them when they're the school everyone actively avoids and it's a way of turning things around.

I don't see it as any more wrong that having to sing from a specific hymn sheet every Sunday... we couldn't get DD into any of our 4 closest primary schools because we're not CofE or RC.

Also, "boosting the "quality" of intake at the expense of others"... isn't that what PPs are suggesting engaged previously-private-selecting parents will do and framing it as a huge positive?

@OhCrumbsWhereNow - you mention banding tests. Is it one of the ones where you sit a banding test to see which ability 'tranche' you fall in, but then distance-based criteria apply within that tranche?

@TizerorFizz - the idea is that it results in a normal ability distribution, which makes the Comprehensive model work better. It's quite common in London and intended to avoid the situation you can get in areas with a lot of selective schools (private or grammar) where the non-selective schools can end up with a serious skew to the lower ability, which puts off higher ability kids (and doesn't serve them well since they need similar ability peers)... and it becomes a spiral.

In practice, it means that tutoring gives you an advantage, since a lot of local high-ability kids have been siphoned off, so the furthest-distance to get in is further in the high-ability bands than the low-ability bands.

You'd think it would shift the low-ability skew to other schools... but the idea is that spreading it all out geographically prevents a really acute problem in particular areas. London is a bit unique in population distribution!

The banding test is different from the aptitude tests.

Aptitude tests are in things like music, languages, tech, sport and schools in the system can select up to 15% of the intake this way.

Banding tests are to ensure an even distribution of ability. Some schools have really complex systems (like Camden School for Girls) where the tests are VR, NVR, Maths and English and then also linked to catchment. Others, like DD's, are just NVR and then marks divided into 3 equal bands - the lottery system then selects 1/3 from each.

"a sad situation" is how a child killing himself is described... but hey as long as he doesn't get an advantage over other people. Got keep 'kicking at the pricks' to make sure only those with considerable wealth access private education!

I’ll ignore the above but the Campden tests are called 11 plus where I live.

11+ selects above a certain score and is based on academic selection and you only get a place if you are one of the high scores.

Banding tests are to ensure that entry is fairer than just 'people who can afford £2 million for a house on the doorstep' and you have equal chances with high, medium or low score.

Banding tests are not a pass or a fail. You get allocated a position in a certain band. You have as much chance of a place with the highest score as with the lowest. In the case of DD's school - random luck, in the case of Camden then it also depends on which distance band you are in as well.

Camden also has music aptitude places allocated on either highest marks in the MAT or high score in the MAT plus performance.

https://www.camdengirls.camden.sch.uk/attachments/download.asp?file=3623&type=pdf

However it has been stated grammars siphon off more of the higher band kids in the state system

So the top banding sets will have more places available in the other schools.
Therefore if you heavily tutor for these and there are more places you will be at an advantage .

VR and NVR are not on the national curriculum and to do well you need to be tutored or have a parent with knows all the tips and tricks.
all things are not equal and it’s not a truly comprehensive type of selection

Perhaps grammars and selective state schools need to be banned so there are an even number of children in all ability groups.
There are ones near Barnet that are highly selective and paid for by the tax payer!

Nearly all the schools round DDs primary have banding tests for secondary, so nobody bothers to tutor for NVR/VR (we definitely didn't) as what is the point?

It's random selection from 3 equal bands so makes zero difference what your score is. Given over 4.5k students apply from all over London and well beyond for 400 places then it's not worth the tutoring as it's not influenced by other local schools. Even if you get the highest mark in the highest band you don't get given a place - you just have the potential of being selected from Band A rather than Band B or Band C.

For some schools where it's also linked to distance I have seen it suggested that you actually have a higher chance of a place if you are in the lowest band in a particular postcode... try tutoring for that!

do you enjoy your race to the bottom?

My 'race to the bottom'? No idea what you mean, I'm not advocating for children to have opportunity and help removed because 'reasons' and it stops the 'rich'.

Or the use of the additional revenue gains through VAT applied to state school budgets could help all children or are only yours deserving?

But it’s such a tiny amount of money even on Labour’s best estimates. Frankly they have already spent in several times over and it really won’t make a jot of difference to school budgets .

Banding might work in cities with decent transport. What do you do when you have schools 5 miles apart and no other options?

You get difference in quality of schools and money buys you choices and an often a better school. If a semi costs £750,000 but 10 miles away it’s £400,000 you would expect to find more parents in better jobs in the expensive area and often this leads to more higher achieving dc in the schools. It takes quite a decent income to live in catchment for some schools. Enough to educate privately for a few years and stay put. One choice will get taxed at 20% and one requires a higher mortgage. The mortgage, if you can get it, looks attractive and you get the better school.

I'm not sure what point you're arguing against there @TizerorFizz . I was just explaining banding since it's a bit unique to London. It's intended to make the Comprehensive system work better, although it isn't perfect.

Aptitude tests on the other hand are definitely selection. To be fair, they were introduced with good intentions too: to create centres of excellence in state schools such as music, sports, languages. The idea is that those schools get more resources for their specialties, so that kids who need that high level of resources do have access to it in the state system, without having to pay for all specialties in every school. Again, something that only really works in big cities where children will be within travel distance of many schools.

As I said, private school isn't the only way to buy better education.

-buying a house in catchment of a good state school
-tutoring for grammar (or a slightly better chance of a better Comp due to banding)
-Music, sports and language tuition to get access to a better state school through aptitude tests
-directly buying the components of education through drama,music,sports,kumon,tutoring
-using personal time and expertise to teach them yourself
-religious affiliation (not financial - but does require parental awareness and effort)

Private school isn't some unique way of gaining privilege. It's one way in which people can buy a better education.

But it is a visible way of identifying some families who have more money (only some of them: there's really no difference between us and our neighbours).

And then you can target special punitive taxes at them.

Deliberately harming a visible minority you don't like out of spite is mob behaviour. I find it really hard to get past the 'Make them pay!' comments. Let alone those who delight in the idea of private school kids having to leave their schools and go to the lowest-performing state schools where there's space. Actually wanting my child to suffer.

Government policy which feeds that is contemptible.

So labour are saying this addition revenue is absolutely going to be equally shared amongst all state schools, tiny 75 pupil school in Cumbria is going to get the same amount as inner city London?
Or is it as pp said way back, 'it doesn't actually matter where it's spent' which sounds like code for 'it'll go to a couple of particular schools, no doubt the ones labour mp dc attend'?