Vat Question????????

[Anoth]

Can I ask a silly question??
We have been given our school fees for 24/25 academic year now for the school my daughter attends.
My question is if labours policy comes in half way through an academic year will the schools be allowed to put the fees up for the remainder of that academic year? Eg if we start paying X amount on September and then labour get in and introduce the added vat in October. Will the fees go up in Jan of that academic year? Normally fees remain un changed for the whole of the academic year once fees have been published but I understand this is a strange situation!
Just wanted to know if I need to prepare to save more for 24/25 fees just in case or will these that are now published still remain until the end of July 25??.
Thanks!

Hi there

do you have any stats on this? Would be interested in facts rather than snark.

Again, can you back up your claims with facts?
Did you even read my comment that EVERY teacher in DDs school is MA/MSC/PhD + QTS qualified?
Why do you think private teachers woukd want to move into state?

I’m not sure why you’re ignoring facts which have pointed out to you, and are continuing to post untruths.

Sounds like a win-win. At least for the ones that either have a teaching qual or are prepared to get one.

The vast majority of state schools do not require teachers to have QTS. It’s a bit strange you don’t understand this given that you claim to work in education.

Back to the point, you were saying private school redundancies aren't problematic because state schools will hire them and there are loads of vacancies.

Apart from there not being nearly enough vacancies to absorb redundant teachers, and the great improbability of skill and location matching, I'm afraid it's obtuse to assume they'll take a job unmotivated ...the stubborn vacancy problem in some state schools is very much a feature of particular schools in particular areas with particular management / behaviour / social challenges.

I'd say "middle class career private school teachers just won't take those jobs." but more accurately "they cannot be assumed to take, or be capable of fulfilling those jobs". Because they are different jobs. Again, I'm talking about people, you seem to be talking about inanimate widgets.

As a point of information, we have rather a lot of people that don't earn, but still receive, money to live on. One way to avoid growing the number of benefit claimants is not to destroy jobs.

(quite apart from the irony of progressives, I don't know if this includes you, railing against public sector job cuts in 2010-2015 and how the very fact of redundancy would destroy people's lives when they were forced into jobs they didn't like...but it's perfectly OK to treat people with complete disregard as long as we're sticking pitchforks into private schools).

"I might see if I can get hired as a maths teacher. Absolutely unqualified in it though my finance skills are pretty sharp, "

Some of us on here might disagree.

If 15000 teachers are made redundant, go for 2000 jobs, and 13000 are left long-term unemployed I don't think destroying the livelihoods of 13000 families is a price worth paying or acceptable collateral damage, for the Labour leadership to have a good soundbite at their next press appearance. Nor as a taxpayer to I want to pick up the tab for state benefits for those families. The whole thing is risible.
It is cruel, and needless, to both the teachers and children who will be displaced.
It's very much in the same vein as Tories' Rwanda policy: cruel, nonsensical, and designed to scapegoat, pit people against each other, and appeal to their basest instincts. If the best we can say is that Labour's policies are somewhat less cruel than those of the conservatives, it's a damning indictment of our two party system.

An interesting question is what will happen if a large rural independent school becomes insolvent as a result of this policy and has to close. You could have 1000 children needing a school place with little space in local state provision or independent schools. This is almost certain to happen to at least a few schools.

The government may take the school into the state sector. There’s some precedent for that but it’s very expensive usually because the school usually needs adaption and has expensive buildings and a large capital sum is usually needed for the transition. Sometimes another independent school will take over a failing one but unlikely if it’s not economically viable.

Labour seem to be thinking that because it is “rich” private school children affected they can just wash their hands of them but it will be hard to do that in reality. This is the sort of thing they should have a clear plan for if they want to pursue this policy and be consulting on. It should also be factored into the cost-benefit analysis.

Labour MPs need to be aware of the risk of stranded children. We know of Labour MPs whose support for this policy is, at best, lukewarm for all the reasons we've covered here.

“Labour seem to be thinking that because it is “rich” private school children affected they can just wash their hands of them but it will be hard to do that in reality”

Where have Labour said they are washing their hands of them?

Unviable schools are closing already. This policy may well lead to more closures, but these will probably be staggered, as parents will, if at all possible, hang on to a transition point. So hopefully school wind downs can be somewhat orderly, where they are needed.

"Where have Labour said they are washing their hands of them?

Every time Bridget Phillipson gets asked "what about the children / teachers?" The answer is "they are welcome in state schools" and "this policy is for the 93%" and "this policy is polling very well"

So basically

• She refuses to discuss the impact on affected children and families, special needs or otherwise
• She insists "a place is a place" regardless of location...let alone quality...let alone whether a place even exists within a reasonable distance
• All collateral damage is justified because it looks like helping me get a Ministerial income (on top of £85k plus expenses and c£150k income of banker hubby)
• I don't need to discuss the unintended consequences (money, jobs, school closures) because it's inconvenient.

I'd say "washing hands" is a fair summary.

we’re having less children, there are primaries that are half empty, secondary numbers are also falling… there will be plenty of room for children who’s parents decide not to pay the extortionate fees anymore
The places available are mainly in less popular schools, true, but presumably all these ‘bright’ kids with their engaged, ‘striving’ parents joining will soon change all that.

"we’re having less children, there are primaries that are half empty, secondary numbers are also falling… there will be plenty of room for children who’s parents decide not to pay the extortionate fees anymore"

You don't know that. Labour don't know that. Even the IFS says it's impossible to predict at local level. Not one council in the country has a plan to accommodate pupils leaving private school; most don't even have figures for how many private school pupils there are especially if boarding away from home.

What we do know: some councils/districts have zero or a handful of places in some year groups. Some people moving house into oversubscribed areas have taken months to be offered a single place.

Plenty of room? We ought to keep track of the number of times you recite "stuff that Labour say and I read in the newspaper" as though you have any authority on the subject.

The places available are mainly in less popular schools, true, but presumably all these ‘bright’ kids with their engaged, ‘striving’ parents joining will soon change all that.

We've been through this a thousand times. Yet again it's in the category of "stuff I've heard" rather than "something that's true".

There are engaged, "striving" parents of "bright" children in state schools today. They pay for catchment areas and tutoring. There is zero evidence they concern themselves with improving any state school apart from (perhaps) their own. Why do you expect private school families to be any different?

If the "less popular" school is a "rubbish" school, how exactly (by what mechanism) do you expect the arriving "bright kid" to change it?

As countless posters with DC in private schools have already pointed out, they will never place their DC in less popular schools. They will “homeschool”, online school (Minerva, Kings Interhigh - list goes on and growing and free of VAT), employ tutors etc and then move their DC at the next transition point into the most popular schools competing with the existing pool of already mainly rich state school parents there. Many may also save to simply pay for Year 10 and 11 only (plus VAT theron). That is when you get the best value out of private school. And those with DC with SEN will be getting their boxing gloves on so I hope the councils lawyer up. Those from places like India and Singapore visiting for jobs will be glancing back at those destinations for alternatives there.

Meanwhile DCs in state schools get ready for the most fierce competition ever at Sixth Form and 11 plus! Because that is what it is looking like in London right now. I am assuming Cambridge, Oxford, Winchester - all the more affluent cities will have the same picture. Outcome - richer areas have even more schools that are state but look like private schools. Looking at state school places like Skinners, Cranbrook etc - these places will become even more insanely competitive.
Pretty sure the Academies will also try and wiggle themselves as far away as possible from more and more Government control, whilst operating within the law of course but using “soft power”.

As a slight warning to parents who think they will move across at sixth form - the sixth form colleges in my local area do prioritise feeder school pupils for places which are almost exclusively state schools.

Although i believe one in farnborough includes a specific independent school that doesnt have a sixth form.

So its not a given that higher results from an independent school will trump the local state pupils.

So do check your local sixth forms if this is your plan.

"Pretty sure the Academies will also try and wiggle themselves as far away as possible from more and more Government control, whilst operating within the law of course but using “soft power”." @Araminta1003

Labour wants councils to have power to shut academy schools where pupil numbers have dwindled (telegraph.co.uk)

I'm afraid Labour will also be increasing LA control over academies so that LAs will be able to stop academies expanding.

It's all covered in part 3 here
Short+Term+Thinking.pdf (squarespace.com)

"sixth form colleges in my local area do prioritise feeder school pupils for places which are almost exclusively state schools."

That sounds almost like a "privilege". As in, an actual "private law or special arrangement".

Just imagine if any school - state or private - had a policy to discriminate against applicants from state schools.

https://www.skinners-school.co.uk/

This is the kind of state school all children should be having access to. Friends’ boys go there, it is amazing! If you have never heard of it, watch the video. Look at the buildings, extra curricular and facilities and the ethos. Which I think comes through a London livery company with high ambitions.
If one state school can offer this, why are there not more like this? That is the question I would like the Labour Party to answer on behalf of the children of Britain. Not try and trick us into a private school distraction.

@MisterChips “I'm afraid Labour will also be increasing LA control over academies so that LAs will be able to stop academies expanding”. If the LAs have choice many won’t be “Labour’? What about those under Tory or Lib Dem? What happens then?

@MisterChips - if the Labour Party are putting stuff out there to worry state school parents about losing places in local Academies potentially, then surely they are asking those majority state school parents to vote the other way too?
Do Local Authorities even want more control of Education again? Probably only if there are significant financial incentives attached and where is the cash going to come from? Most are struggling as is through budgets and Social Care primarily. They are not going to want more responsibility unless there is a financial sweetener.

To put some figures on the number of places, the most recent statistics showed 578,000 unfilled places in primary schools and 465,000 unfilled places in secondary schools. That might seem a lot. However, despite this, 17% of primary schools and 23% of secondary schools were operating at or above their official capacity. In total, these schools accommodated 59,000 more pupils than their capacity. The explanation for this is that many of the empty places are in the wrong location - a school with spare places in Luton isn't much use to someone living in Canterbury.

The ONS projects that another 30,000 primary places and 40,000 secondary places will be needed by 2027/28. This, of course, assumes that there is no change to the proportion of pupils attending independent schools. The most recent survey showed 592,000 pupils in independent schools.

So in theory, there are enough places in state schools to accommodate independent school pupils if they all transferred. However, in practice many of the places will be in the wrong location. Many more additional places would be needed.

Looking at the worst case for a Labour government, if all 592,000 pupils moved to state schools, the £1.7 billion they want to raise through VAT will not materialise and, in order to maintain current levels of spending per pupil, they will need to increase the budget for schools by £4.4 billion. This ignores the cost of any new buildings needed to accommodate additional pupils.

A similar policy was introduced in Greece in 2015. It led to schools closing and acute shortages of both teachers and school places in the state sector.

The state schools here dont have thier own individual sixth forms. They federated and formed a big central sixth form college. Any one from those federated schools is guaranteed a place, if they meet the entry criteria. There are normally more places than the federated schools need so people from neighboring state and independent schools apply for the remaining places. But during bulge years, this is a potential issue for any one outside the federation.

It does also discriminate against state school pupils who are not in the federation, some of whom live closer due to LA boundaries.

Does anyone have more detailed information about where the teacher unions stand on all of this? Are they not going to be conflicted?

The General Secretary of the NASUWT has expressed concerns about the policy publicly. I haven't seen anything public from the other teaching unions, but there are certainly indications that they are concerned this policy will lead to redundancies and will increase pressure on independent schools to withdraw from TPS.

Thanks @prh47bridge - NASUWT is the more moderate one. I would like to hear the input from the NEU in particular as they are quite partisan -pro Labour- so I would like to know what their position is. There are plenty of private school teachers in the NEU and it is important they act in the best interests of their members.

It is very important to remember that the ratio of teachers in private schools is high! It is far more significant than the ratio of private school kids to state school kids.
They are going to need protection from their unions in case of redundancies. I would like to know if there is any potential conflict of interest?

It won't because no private parent will send their DC to a failing school. Which has been explained to you many times and, along with everything else, you choose to ignore.
You claim to work in the education sector, I hope to god you aren't a teacher!