How many kids do you know definitely leaving private for state?

[Quodraceratops]

I'd be very interested to know how many children people know of who are definitely leaving their private school for a state school - not people with plans to do so in future years, solely those definitely going now / in 2025.
For myself - large Scottish all years school, I only have knowledge of my early primary kids's classes - no-one leaving so far (but I'm guessing early primary may be less affected as Labour have been signalling this policy for a while so you wouldn't start if you couldn't afford VAT).

That is the same for any public service. The health service varies greatly between health boards but the majority of us have no option but to accept the service offered.
I am just surprised that the number of DC who wouldn’t fit into the local school. By offering different types of school from church schools to grammar schools we are creating lack of diversity in schools. Middle class parents will find god and go to church for however many years is required just to get a child into a school. Other parents will spend £££ on tutoring to get a child into grammar school.
The children that miss out are those with parents who are usually too knackered from working ridiculously long hours just to pay the bills.

Well the answer should be more variation available for everyone. I’m all for the resurgent of technical colleges. I think that lots of children are pushed into secondary when it’s not suitable for them. Waiting until they are 16 to follow a more practical path is too long.
Secondary has been a difficult road for my DD. My only other option was HS which would have been worse for her. I don’t think the overall answer is more PS for people with money, but more variation at state level. PS at the end of the day is only benefitting a tiny tiny minority of children, it’s not fixing any overall issues with education. Apart from pockets of the country there aren’t nor will be a choice of many types of PS either, there isn’t the money outside of London/SE to support them.

I don't quite get it tbh, is this really reliving the trauma of 11+ failure? Where we live only a tiny minority gets to Henrietta, QE, Latymer, Tiffin etc, but for the remaining vast majority there is no horror of going to a comp, they're reasonably good in MC areas despite being near grammars that take the very brightest or most tutored.

What's the actual problem people have with grammars? 🤔

This. Super selective grammars + super selective PS + non-selective PS + good comprehensive.

I don't understand why choice is bad unless it's ideological of course (choice has been historically restricted in proper socialist countries like USSR, China or Cuba).

In most grammar areas they are not a tiny minority - they take 20-25% of the local population. Meaning that the secondary modern (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) schools take only the bottom 75% of the ability layer (and the ones that had a bad day in the test). If you're a bright child in one of these schools your needs may not be well catered for. These schools also tend to do worse than might be expected from intake.

People tend not to have problems with grammars. They are the ones who have DC that go to grammar school. People have a problem with the secondary modern schools that are an inevitable part of the same system.

This thread is full of private school parents saying that private school parents might take their children out of private school to send them to grammar. Not seen a single comment from a parent considering a secondary modern.

And yes I can afford the VAT - but I don't agree with it and so I will opt out of private for secondary. It's as simple as that.

So because my DD has never been at a private school, we her parents are 'spongers' who clearly dodge tax by paying into pensions (don't YOU pay into a private pension with all your riches or are you pissing it all away on PS and Maldives holidays so that you can claim pension credit when you retire?). However, it's absolutely fine for you to decide to use state schools for secondary. At what point are you going to call yourself a sponger?

I have not read a single justification on these threads as to why these wealthy people using excellent state schools shouldn't be paying more rather than sponging off people already using private schools.

I don't even understand this ^ My DH pays additional rate tax, I'm a basic tax payer. Pretty sure our taxes are more than supporting our family currently, not sure who we're apparently 'sponging' off.

Honestly, I couldn't give a shit whether Labour put VAT on PS fees and I have no idea whether it will improve state provision or not but the whinging and hypocrisy on here is fucking tedious.

@Ubertomusic - in full grammar areas the non-selective schools are often not schools anyone would want their child going to if they value education. Back when I was at a grammar in a full grammar area one of the non-selectives consistently had a pass rate at GCSE of less than 20%: would you want your child going there (or perhaps you wouldn't mind as I know the MN refrain is that a clever child will do well anywhere ).

I totally agree with you.

I swither on this. I don't think parental choice is a bad thing. I just don't see how you square the circle of parental choice for everyone - not just those within easy reach of many schools, or those children whose parents are rich enough to pay for alternatives, or those children whose parents have the werewithal to tutor for 11+ - a school system that is affordable to the country, and a school system that delivers on social and educational advancement for the sectors of society that need it the most.

"Parental choice" of grammar schools in 11+ areas takes away the parental choice of strong comps, because all that's left are secondary moderns. And there is a terrifying thread on 11+ prep at the moment where an exam question setter said that the difficulty of the questions is reaching insane, GCSE levels nowadays because the children are so overly prepped.

Well my DH and I are both additional rate tax payers and so yes we do pay pensions and have nice holidays. And if we use state grammar school for secondary, then yes I do think we'll be sponging off of people who are paying VAT on school fees and some of whom are less able to afford but than us but feel, for whatever reason, that they need to make that sacrifice. This should be a wealth / income tax which I would happily pay.

Well my DH and I are both additional rate tax payers and so yes we do pay pensions and have nice holidays. And if we use state grammar school for secondary, then yes I do think we'll be sponging off of people who are paying VAT on school fees and some of whom are less able to afford but than us but feel, for whatever reason, that they need to make that sacrifice. This should be a wealth / income tax which I would happily pay.

Well that's your choice. So long as everyone pays the tax that is mandated by law, it's absolutely up to them what they spend the rest of their money on. Personally we're not fussed about regular nice holidays and would rather save the money for DD's future.

If you want to consider yourself a sponger then that's on you but stop trying to lay that on others. My view is that people who contribute a lot of tax to fund public services are perfectly entitled to use those public services. Do you think that higher tax payers should be banned from using the NHS with the exception of emergency services?

True grammar areas take the top 20%, so they are pretty much creaming off the top set/top table of every primary school and educating them separately.

This works great for those kids (mine being in that group) but not so great for everyone else. Secondary moderns don't all offer the same range of subjects for example (separate sciences, more than one foreign language) and it can be difficult to be put in for higher papers. Added to that they lose out on the contributions and behaviour of their brighter cohort who are all at the grammar. It doesn't allow for children to excel in one area not anothe, and doesn't allow for late bloomers. Plus the psychological damage caused by telling children aged 10 whether they are clever or not.

That's before you even get into tutoring.

All in all, they are bad for secondary modern kids and bad for the education of society as a whole.

But grammar schools are great for my child, which is why he goes there. He's my priority. But I don't tie myself in knots to argue that it's fair or best for everyone.

My DC went to a super selective grammar - single parent's household, no family wealth, no prep whatsoever as we couldn't afford tutors and I couldn't do it myself as I was working my socks off.
Do you suggest we don't exist? 😁

If you introduced VAT on private medical fees to help fund the NHS then I'd apply the same logic- increase income tax so it's fairly funded by all.

Apparently, [white] middle class on MN don't value education that much either as the seem to be hell bent on abolishing grammars 😂

Going back to the original point of this thread - our incredibly unscientific poll of how many kids are leaving the private sector seems to be coming up with 'quite a few' as an answer. I appreciate this is entirely anecdata but with the school census due in Oct there will be hard numbers very soon.

Does anyone know when the Oct census data is published? I can't find a date.

Furthermore - if this policy looks to cost more than it brings in, would that make a legal challenge on the basis that the gov are seeking to restrict parental choice on non-state education more likely to win? If the government knows that VAT will cost more than it brings in then they have no financial justification for the policy, so it is purely ideological. Any thoughts from legal minds?

You do pay tax on insurance premiums and it is classed as a taxable benefit if provided through an employer

If you introduced VAT on private medical fees to help fund the NHS then I'd apply the same logic- increase income tax so it's fairly funded by all.

Do you consider higher tax payers using NHS services other than emergency services as spongers?

My thoughts exactly! 😂 It's not social mobility if immigrants' children get grammar places 🤦‍♀️

I think our unscientific poll says "not that many" and quite a lot of them were planning to leave anyway.

Insurance premiums aren't the same as medical fees.

I said they are only spongers if they expect other equally or less wealthy people to pay to fund more. So yes, if I use the NHS I wouldn't expect someone using private medical care to pay to fund the NHS service I use - that would be sponging off of them if I am capable of paying the same. I am not sure what doesn't make sense about that to you - it's just everyone paying their fair way and not expecting less well off people to fund it.

My train is due in now so I will leave you to happily argue to yourself.

I don't think the problem lies in less able intake - there is nothing wrong with being less able at maths that's required for 11+ but at the same time be talented in arts, sports, drama or anything else.

It's the ethos at schools that IS a problem. It has to be changed for the improvement to happen, but it won't be. Michaela example demonstrates it very well - the intake is not selective and from poor backgrounds, the ethos is focussed on achievements at individual level be it STEM uni or a working class job and stability in life, and the leftie hate the school. That shows their actual values - and I'm speaking as a member of Labour party 😂

OK I'll continue arguing with myself to try to work out WTF you mean.

I THINK you're trying to say that there are people with kids at PS who earn less than my family but they are generously sending their kids private to be less of a burden on the state system so that my child can have more resources?

How kind of them.