Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 7

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuation of previous threads discussing VAT on independent school fees. The thread title is a headline from a Times article last autumn.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5237575-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5242586-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5280646-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5301690-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-4
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5317397-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-5
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5337850-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-6

What specifically are you thinking of that a parent is missing?

Can you give an example

Many state school parents don’t seem to understand that behaviour management strategies and successful or productive teaching styles, and ethos, are affected massively by cohort, it’s not always the other way round. This has become particularly clear post-covid, where behaviour in almost all state schools has become significantly more challenging. Schools used to a more light touch behaviour regime and generally good child-parent-teacher relationships which genuinely worked pre-covid needed to learn from the experience of schools which had always faced a higher number of emotional and behavioural challenges. Of course, pre-covid, people were often happy to believe the schools struggling more with poor behaviour and low teacher morale were less well run, but now some outstanding schools have the same issues - because their approach no longer works for the reality of their intake. So, were those schools really better, or was it just their intake? Parents would often have you believe the former, that their school was better run.

Another example is the impact of headteachers - the schools where a new Headteacher comes in and makes hugely popular changes, loved by parents, but behind the scenes loathed by staff, with appallingly bad people management skills. Some of these headteachers, like some business leaders, are expert at making things look good on the outside for a short while, taking credit for that and using the boost to move onwards and upwards, leaving the real damage they caused to the next person to take the school on. It is surprising in a popular school how slow some parents can be to notice that rather a lot of staff seem to be leaving - they may initially tell each other that those were the less good teachers, or what a shame they wanted to move back up North, or have time off to be with their families, and it’s not until they wonder why people are leaving but they aren’t being told, or their children are spending a lot of time in class without an actual teacher at the front of it, just someone sitting there while they read through bits of a textbook, that they start to twig that their excellent school might be hiding a few concerning issues.

Ok I appreciate you taking the time to write these out but the cohort one is not a surprise at all. Parents do understand it impacts schools, it’s why people pay more for houses to get access.

The second, fine it’s not an issue we’ve had. It’s not surprising though. I don’t think there’s anything I’m unaware of really unless someone can think of more things.

By definition, you wouldn’t be aware of it. 🤣 Another common one is the belief that the only good comprehensives are “leafy comprehensives,” and that these are the only sort that parents with choices would send their children to. I didn’t have an issue sending my children to their local, not over-subscribed primary and secondary schools, which were neither “leafy” nor in challenging areas, but just schools serving and their local community. I didn’t perceive the supposed massive differences between those and the ones in other areas that a particular type of parent flocks to (eg those moving out of the feverish atmosphere in the London education sector to go to a “grammar school area,” or somewhere more “relaxed,” but actually taking the feverishly paranoid competitiveness of London schooling with them without realising it, having received all their schooling recommendations from other Londoners who’d moved in the same direction). There is a lot to be said for a perfectly good school that reflects, serves and is a genuine part of the more mixed community around it, as opposed to the heavily over-subscribed one in the next town where parents bemoan the fact that people who could afford private school fees are taking all the places. Really, all types of school can work for all types of people, and sometimes a hugely popular school is really just hyped up by the similar personalities of people who have flocked to it and created a fear amongst those who can’t get into “the” school that they are genuinely missing out in something by going elsewhere. It simply isn’t always the case outside of big cities that if you can’t get your child into “the” school, then their future is at risk. You can find brilliant, inspiring teachers in all sorts of schools, some parents just need to view them with a slightly less fevered lens - and the Government needs to start funding them better, or there really will be a reducing number of happy learning environments for children to go to school in.

Well yeh that’s why I said unless people write more. You haven’t exposed anything that’s new to parents so far.

Clearly I have, given the choices I have seen some parents actively make to send their children to schools they are told are good when it is clear to anyone who looks closer that they are already failing. Two or three wasted years later, those same parents are desperately trying to get their children out of schools that have already been failing their children for some time. So I beg to differ. I’ve also known governing bodies recruit headteachers that any basic research would have shown were bad news - so much information these days that could reveal patterns of issues in the schools they had previously been at that strangely appeared to go dramatically downhill shortly after they left (indicating they’d been on a downward spiral for some time beforehand, because nothing happens that quickly).

Clearly I have, given the choices I have seen some parents actively make to send their children to schools they are told are good when it is clear to anyone who looks closer that they are already failing. Two or three wasted years later, those same parents are desperately trying to get their children out of schools that have already been failing their children for some time. So I beg to differ. I’ve also known governing bodies recruit headteachers that any basic research would have shown were bad news - so much information these days that could reveal patterns of issues in the schools they had previously been at that strangely appeared to go dramatically downhill shortly after they left (indicating they’d been on a downward spiral for some time beforehand, because nothing happens that quickly).

IMHO it's a distraction to discuss whether or not wealthy people should send their children to state schools. All children are entitled to a state education, aren't they?

My interest is in whether this policy is a net good or not.

For example:

Will some children be adversely affected? I would say yes, e.g. if their education is disrupted by their private school closing or being removed particularly at important educational stages, or if children who would have got a place at a particular state school are displaced by children moving from private. So then the question is, does it matter in the grand scheme of society for X number of children to be affected? Policy supporters would presumably say no it doesn't because it'll be a tiny percentage.

Will state schools benefit from the arrival of the engaged, sharp-elbowed, supportive families with clever high-achieving children who have been siphoned off by the private sector? Policy supporters would presumably say yes, there will be raised standards, improved behaviour and a flowering of parental donations and assistance, because if not (see tiny insignificant percentage thing above) then what would be the point for the grand scheme of society?

Will it cost some state schools more in money and resources if the arrivals from private are children who have SEN, having previously been failed by the state sector? Will it exacerbate the behavioural issues and disruptions highlighted in earlier posts, which have got worse since COVID? Policy supporters would presumably say no, because it'll be a tiny percentage of the overall numbers/cost.

And ultimately, will there be a net amount of tax raised by this policy? There was a government report saying that it would raise £WhatEvs, which IMO seemed to be based on assumptions such as only a tiny percentage of children would move, and that in general families using private schools are uniquely not incentivised to change other behaviours in the face of financial pressures. IIRC the report itself acknowledged that above a certain percentage of movement, the policy would lose money.

So the question is, will there be a tiny percentage moving/being affected (resulting in net £££ for 6500 teachers housing, plus no significant increase in SEN resourcing costs etc) or will there be sufficient number moving (resulting in glorious uplift of the grateful state school recipients of the clever, engaged movers)?

I think the honest answer is: Nobody knows.

And the next honest answer is: It doesn't matter in the end what the net result is, because nobody will ever accept anybody else's data collection, so people will delightedly applaud (if supporting) or just have to suck it up (if against).

”IMHO it's a distraction to discuss whether or not wealthy people should send their children to state schools.”

@LeakyRad - this policy aka the Labour Party is telling multimillionaires to use state schools by implementing this policy. They are basically telling people with 10 million plus of net asset owners that it is good for society for them to send their children to the local state school. And by implication, they are telling them to use state resources, more widely.
So why is it a distraction? It goes to the heart of the matter.

I know someone worth at least 15 million pounds taking their child out of public school and sending them to the local very high achieving Sixth Form this September. They would never have done this pre VAT, it would never have occurred to them.
Now we can say that that person may be in the minority and yes it is guess work, but this is the effect of such a policy. The private school money is going to be used on foreign holidays instead. That is a fact for that family as they have told me.

@Araminta1003 I think get where you're coming from but I disagree with you on this particular point (I do agree with you overall on VAT policy though).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is that wealthy people who use private schools are effectively freeing up state school places for others, and that they should do so if they can afford to?

Where I'm coming from is simply that all children are entitled to a state education. If some families choose to take up this entitlement, whilst others choose to pay for private provision, others choose to buy a house in a good catchment, or choose tuition/extra-curriculars, or spend on holidays, or whatever combinations of those... well that's because more money inevitably means more choice.

I do agree with you that this government's policy clearly is that everybody should use standardised (I mean, it really isn't, but they say it is) state education, and that they consider people who opt out to be troublesome in a variety of ways.

@LeakyRad - I completely agree that all children are entitled to state education and all people living here legally are entitled to the NHS. And it has to be that way because you need the wealthiest to want to pay taxes towards it all and feel they get the free choice to use it, if they want to.
However, the private sectors have complemented the state sectors quite successfully and freed up money and resources. And that is actually what we want. We want people to be given a choice but actually it suits us very well if they pay their own way and pay a lot of tax as well.

I simply dispute the actual value of a very rich kid going to a state school instead. If the parents are paying school fees they are paying for something that creates value like employment, additional education etc.

I simply do not see what exact value is created by that child going to the state school instead. They will simply cost us all 6k a year. The parents cannot donate the equivalent of school fees to state schools either and won’t. You can donate to the PTA for some iPads or playground equipment etc, but I doubt anybody is donating large sums worth eg a whole teacher. It is not even legal to do so.
It is more than 4 billion a year in education budget not spent on the 6 per cent in private schools. However, there is actually much more than that because there are loads of people working and paying taxes in private schools.

So it is simply a destruction of value that I see. Just like Brexit. And for some ideological reasons as well, like take back control/save the NHS type lies. Here the lie is that it is some sort of higher social good to tell the very rich to use state resources.

@Araminta1003 Broadly speaking, I agree with most of your post above!

It is not an unreasonable philosophy that all education should be comprehensive, consistent and state-provided. Just as it is not unreasonable philosophy that healthcare should be free at the point of use or that the rail network should be run by the state and not private companies.

The devil is in the detail, of course, and we have hybrids in each of those areas.

It is not an unreasonable philosophy that all education should be comprehensive, consistent and state-provided

1.Do you think that one child getting additional education (paid for independently) takes away from another child? If so, how? If not, do you really think it's a reasonable philosophy to cap the amount of education available to each child (so that they all match), even though that results in an overall less educated UK population?

2.Do you think that other building blocks of childhood should also all be capped, so that children get exactly (and only) the same opportunities as every other child? The amount being capped at what can be funded for all by the state. Music tuition? Sports clubs? Holidays and days out? Books? Parental support? If not, why do you think school education is different?

@strawberrybubblegum as I have previously stated, I am a private school parent. But just as an atheist can respect the tenets of Christianity, I can respect the philosophical position that education for all in a country should be provided by the state.

So I am not engaging with your questions as the philosophy isn’t, personally, mine.

Please also note my second paragraph. Thanks.

I think state schools desperately need more funding and this should not (and could not) be achieved by private schools closing down because they also need more funding. I think all children have a raw enough deal at the moment with the way the world is going and do feel very sorry for families whose children are having to leave schools they have been happy at. This is happening in the state sector also, as schools are being closed or reduced in size and staff made redundant. Closures will move on to the secondary sector when the bulge years have all left. Even with enough pupils, redundancies are happening or soon forthcoming in the state sector at all stages of education. I think all children are having their choices and futures restricted as a result.

I’m fine with state education and use it but this policy is damaging both sectors, it only helped Labour politicians but perhaps briefly.

@strawberrybubblegum ,

‘1.Do you think that one child getting additional education (paid for independently) takes away from another child? If so, how? If not, do you really think it's a reasonable philosophy to cap the amount of education available to each child (so that they all match), even though that results in an overall less educated UK population?’

One child clearly doesn’t, but does an entire section of the elite removing its children from state education negatively affect the sector? I don’t know but it might.

Don’t you think that it is odd that the UK is pretty much alone in having this luxury sector for the children of the wealthy?

And, if it were an unalloyed benefit, we should be doing a lot better than Europe educationally, helped up by the amazing private school sector. Are we? I don’t think so.

2.Do you think that other building blocks of childhood should also all be capped, so that children get exactly (and only) the same opportunities as every other child? The amount being capped at what can be funded for all by the state. Music tuition? Sports clubs? Holidays and days out? Books? Parental support? If not, why do you think school education is different?

This is a reductio ad absurdum argument. They rarely work well. I could ask you whether a better everything should be purchasable? Should you be able to bid for a school place outside catchment area? Should private school parents be able to pay to have their children given extra time in class? Should they be able to pay for their children to have an early lunch spot and the school sport of their choice?

Extra time in exams is now pretty much buyable, as are remarks (a bit unfair for those who can’t afford it).

Other countries have private for the wealthy?

They just don’t tax it this way, in fact some offer rebates. Because they get that reducing state burden makes sense.

We have less kids percentage wise in private education than many other European countries. Germany doesn’t allow homeschooling and has had a big boom
in private education in the last 20 years. Switzerland has a high percentage of state educated kids but they spend a huge amount at secondary level and they have private healthcare. In France, many private schools are not as elite because they are often subsidised by the state making the line between the two more blurred.

The solution is and always has been to simply increase the quality of state education by spending more per pupil and valuing experienced staff properly. None of it is complicated. There is just mass denial of the after effects of Covid on children and no real political will to sort this crisis out. Yet when it comes to NHS waiting lists it’s acknowledged they are still too long and we are still catching up. The real threat to state education now is politicians purchasing ed tech en masse rather than valuing high quality human staff. Kids with two working parents need real human interaction even more than in the past.

And, if it were an unalloyed benefit, we should be doing a lot better than Europe educationally, helped up by the amazing private school sector. Are we? I don’t think so.

If that’s the case I wonder why so many children from overseas are sent to UK private schools. Some of the schools are kept afloat by these pupils.

Exactly. It’s something people from other countries not only want to use but emulate in their system at times.

It really is a Labour thing to damage something we do well for those votes.

We have family in Ireland and the Netherlands. Both have plenty of private schools. The difference is they are heavily subsidised by the government so are much more affordable. In the Netherlands over 6% are privately educated and in Ireland nearly 7%. These are not all religious schools but good international schools, or schools that have more sport etc etc. They just don't have the class obsession we do

We'll either move to state if we can get a decent place or move to the Netherlands (fortunately my children have European passports so can also benefit from uni there if they choose to go). No loss to the UK as we're not high earners (my entire average salary goes on school fees which I was happy to do but can't accommodate a 20% rise plus prob more when the NI and biz rates is properly factored in). But if we do go the UK will be losing two lovely, grounded intelligent kids, although am very well aware that no-one cares about that

I don’t think the private schools currently closing are the ones with substantial numbers of overseas pupils that are also being emulated overseas, though, are they? And really, the biggest names now just seem to aim to give their pupils access to the best of everything, whether sporting facilities and coaches, or world class theatre facilities, or a wide range of subjects and hobbies. They are overflowing with opportunities for the shrinking number of people who can afford it and an absolutely tiny number of people desperate enough to apply who they then handpick to let in. These schools are nothing like most UK private schools, though, and I don’t actually believe our other private schools are emulated elsewhere - other countries are perfectly content with their own versions, thank you very much.