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).

I’ve never seen a bigger reach than someone suggesting that paying lower private school fees is some kind of magnanimous social service.

Because you're making up bullshit scenarios and pretending that they're relevant?

Policy 2 obviously - such as taxing cigarettes & alcohol. Money for the treasury & reduced harm to the general public. Win win.
Or to put it another way - the road to hell is paved with well intentioned political policies which caused predictable harm.

Good example.
Prohibition versus taxing alcohol.

the road to hell is paved with well intentioned political policies which caused predictable harm.

Exactly

Have you genuinely not followed the argument, or are you deliberately misrepresenting what I say?

Fewer kids in private school (which is a positive), freeing up private school teachers to teach in the state system which desperately needs them, keeping state schools open which would otherwise have to close due to falling birth rate, plus more money for the Treasury to spend on state education.

Oh this is fun, looking at things in such a blindingly one-sided way.

freeing up private school teachers to teach in the state system which desperately needs them,

Really? I’m sure there have been quite a few posts on here claiming private school teachers wouldn’t last five minutes in a state school classroom, and anyway aren’t they all unqualified?

What's that? It's a bit more complicated than the entirely one-sided view might suggest?

We've had a million threads hashing out what different people think will happen.

I'm happy if you're willing to consider - even to yourself - that IF the education budget goes up but teacher-student ratios don't improve, then this policy will have been a failure.

And that IF more students than usual aren't offered a state school place within their county next September - even if only in some pinch-point areas such as Edinburgh, Bristol and Surrey, then the policy will have brought harm to students.

Turns out I was naively sanguine about it.

Since my first post at the start of September, two girls (out of 20) from DD's form have left to join a nearby comprehensive (Ofsted outstanding for many years). They had started the term here, so must had paid the full term fees and still chose to leave, probably because a place in the school they went to is highly coveted and in year admissions come rarely.

Also hearing that fewer than expected took up places in year 7, including parents who paid the deposit, turned up at year 7 welcome event, and then backed out. I have never seen such a thing before.

So yes, the the policy seems to have already made some impact in people's behaviour, even before January.

Whether the policy is a 'success' or a 'failure' really depends on what you think the purpose of this policy is, isn't it?

The fact you know I am talking about you proves my point.

The purpose of the policy is:

To remove a tax break on a non-essential service.

To increase the number of middle class parents using the state sector.

To raise some money.

It will do all three. If it does either two or three or both, it’s still worked.

One might also consider whether a purpose of the policy was a sop to left-wing voters who might have suspected that Keir Starmer wasn't really Labour, or that the manifesto wasn't radical enough, to distance Labour from the Conservative Party and to please those who have had the last 14 years of their life ruined by a succession of very expensively privately educated twats.

It was, after all, quite a popular policy in the manifesto.

Perhaps you're right, and I'm being naive to think that the policy was ever well-intentioned.

Ah well. Les jeux sont fait.

Where did Labour ever say that the purpose of the policy is to increase middle class parents in state schools?!

The tax break language is manipulation. There never was a tax break. Independent schools save the taxpayer money.

So that leaves us with raising money. It’s very doubtful that it’s going to do that and even if it does the amount will be tiny when compared with the overall education budget.

If the Labour Party actually want to raise money for education, they can put a penny on the pound for income tax for ALL taxpayers. That way everyone who benefits from free state education, pays for it. I’m sure you will be happy with that won’t you?

Not only have Labour not said that the policy is intended to increase the number of middle class children in state schools, they have specifically denied it. Starmer has gone on record to say that he 'has no problem with private schools' and that lots of them do great work. Reeves has said that children shouldn't have to move schools due to the policy, because private schools should be able to absorb the VAT.

If Labour had the honesty to admit why they're really introducing this policy, I would have more respect for them, even though I would still disagree with the policy.

Gonna keep saying it, but the fact that so many of the private school parents, after claiming that they are only going private due to "smaller, nurturing class sizes and marvellous music and sport opportunities" are now getting ready to pack their kids into grammar schools (which have neither of these advantages!) as a substitute, suggests strongly that there are plenty of people who would pay for an affordable no-frills school with normal sized classes and normal facilities. I'd like to see some conversation in the sector about costs and "what are our parents prepared to pay for and what are they not prepared to pay for" before I get too sympathetic.

Well of course they're going to, if they can no longer afford school fees - what other option do they have?

Where did Labour ever say that the purpose of the policy is to increase middle class parents in state schools?!

People have projected their own ideological desires on this. There are posts here hoping entire independent sector would disappear as a result.

The best possible outcome treasury can hope for is that it does not change tax payer behaviour at all - independent sector continues to educate approx 7% students, so the exchequer gets the maximum possible revenue.

From treasury perspective, every student moving to state sector is a net loss - loss of potential VAT revenue and rise of expenditure in a state school.

But this outcome pleases many ideologues greatly if people move to state sector, independent schools close/staff lose jobs, no matter what the revenue loss to state. Because only then society will become equal🙄

My DC is in a form of 25 at his grammar. That’s how his school does it and most of his optional subject classes are smaller. My other DC is in a form of 23 at private school. So there is hardly any difference, especially as the grammar is far more selective.

That's a good thing though, right? Acting out of self-interest?

Laudable, even.

@Boohoo76 "there is hardly any difference, especially as the grammar is far more selective"

Academically possibly. Socio economically-not so much.

Well actually the grammar is far more academic, very few independents out perform it but I wasn’t talking about academics, I was talking about class size. And 23 kids of average intelligence or above compared with 25 of some of the brightest in the country is not a huge difference, if anything the grammar probably has the advantage.

As far as socio economic goes, that’s an interesting one as most people “look down” when they consider socio economic rather than “looking up”. What do I mean? Well they are looking for people in lower socio economic groups and ignoring the fact that super rich kids in state schools are rare. So in my DC’s private they have everyone from kids on 100% bursaries (including refugees who arrived in the UK with nothing) to the kids of Premiership footballers. At my state school no one’s parent was even a doctor or a lawyer, never mind super rich. Many state schools don’t have a wide range of socio economic groups because they are representative of their local area.

I've said that self interest is less harmful than blind ideology.

The self interest of the ideologues sounds like double trouble to me.

I've said that self interest is less harmful than blind ideology.

The self interest of the ideologues sounds like double trouble to me.