private schools near me have reduced their bursary offers??

[Mizmumy]

Hi, very long time lurker- made a post to ask......as not sure I can see anything related to this.

My twins are in year 6. They are both really sporty and doing well academically. They are at the local primary and we applied for the local school. No issue with the school, but we thought to try our luck with a bursary for them both. We live in Surrey, and there are actually more private schools near us than state.

We have applied for the kids to a few different schools but have been refused for nearly all the applications. The bursars have all told us the schools have significantly reduced their bursary student offers for next year. I have friends who work in 2 of these schools and they shared that no bursaries were offered. We were not expecting 100% bursaries, looking at maybe a 10-20% reduction in fees.

Has anyone else come across this? Thanks for your answers if you have any?

@CillaDog finland has a private sector, though - they actually receive state funding for the basic educational provision but parents pay a top up for other provision.

what you are describing- a wide menu of well funded options to suit every child’s individual needs and every parent’s preferences - sounds lovely but very very expensive and probably not very practical.

@Labraradabrador doesn't stop me being idealistic and wanting more! I'd much rather challenge a system, rather than say that better is too hard to achieve.

I know I am idealistic! I do think however, it's bad form to begrudge paying a VAT that should have been paid for years in my opinion.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you've posted, but this needs to be challenged.

Most children don't need private school, no. But the standard is night and day better. The teaching is better, because the teacher has time in her day to plan and do admin. The support is better, because there are more TAs. My child has an adult listen to him read nearly every day.

Please don't do teachers in the state sector a disservice by saying the quality is the same. Teachers in state schools are doing an incredible job with very very few resources, but let's not pretend that it's acceptable. State schools are a mess.

I am all in favour of funding them properly, and pay our additional VAT gladly in the hopes the state sector will see some benefit.

But you can't pretend the schools are the same.

Quite simply though most people do not need private school and it's simply an elitist way to feel better than others

There are plenty of people on mn who seem to think themselves better than others by sending their dc to state school.
”of course we could easily afford to send our triplets and two sets of twins to private school but we don’t because we’re decent, moral people”

@Ginny98

Don't need as in, were state schools properly funded and staffed to the standard they should be their parents wouldn't send them to private schools.

What you're saying is absolutely right though, at the moment many state schools are just surviving due to hard-working teachers and staff, but aren't able to give anymore than they do.

I did word it poorly, but more than most people wouldn't be using it if state funding was where it should be. The teaching ability and quality could be just as good but is currently mismanaged and under utilised due to constantly battling a lack of funding currently.

Schools are now are still offering bursary, dds friend got a 75% one despite being mortgage free!

But the standard is night and day better. The teaching is better, because the teacher has time in her day to plan and do admin.

That's not a blanket rule. Some private schools are not better teaching wise than some state schools.

It amazes me how many people find themselves onto the Private Education section of MN and get infuriated by it...

Let's please stick to the OPs question/concerns...

I think that is the point of why VAT was introduced - so few of them could demonstrate charitable benefit at an appropriate level and at those who really need charity. Bursaries generally went to those who were already moderately or grossly privileged in life, not those who would have really benefitted. Other work was also so modest as to not really make much of a difference.

The issue now though is that even that modest 'gain' from 'charitable' work has been reduced due to increase in 'cost' and reducing numbers of customers has been reduced.

Coming from a European country where the state subsidises private schools (as really they are saving them money!) I really fail to understand the attitude in the UK against private schools and their parents. It is as if people are mad that others can afford it and therefore take pleasure in ‘making them pay’. Despise for the children sent to these schools, etc. Is that jealousy/‘chip on their shoulder’??
Why are people not mean/rude when others use private healthcare? Or when people take a taxi instead of using public transport? Or even when people move to the catchment of good state schools and price out others?

Also, perplex at comments that parents can easily afford 20% more - imagine the outcry if everybody’s rent went up 20% because they can afford the current price so they can afford 20% more!

Anyway, back to the original topic: of course bursaries will suffer, and that is only the visible part, because families who (despite what some posters think) can’t absorb the price increase will
reduce other spends and what will go first is charity donations, choosing use independent businesses instead of chains despite a higher cost, etc. Our primary school has announced that from Sept the two state primaries nearby will be asked to pay for the use of facilities that they currently use for free. Just anecdotical examples of course.

Grossly privileged in life? Seriously? So some kids have a nice house, nice parents and nice school that their parents pay for and that is gross?

All that is happening as a result of these stupid Labour policies are that we are all going to just get a bit poorer. Tax take decreases as those with top jobs increasingly look to other countries. UK private schools are used by the very top tax payers that we all benefit from.
Right now everyone is being displaced one rung.
The OP who would have gone private with a 20-30% discount will go to a great state school. That displaces the children who would have otherwise gotten into that state school. The very top private schools will simply take more rich international kids. The British rich kids go to a slightly cheaper private school etc and the only kids who lose out, as always, are the very poorest kids. Because not only do they end up in the worse school, there is now less tax money to go around for benefits and UC. We can already see it in the tax take figures. This Government is putting off businesses and rich people investing in our country with all their ideological warfare.

No, this is a bit of a fantasy I’m afraid. Charitable purpose is not the same as public benefit and both are pretty complex and not really to do with bursaries - take a look at the links I posted upthread for a start in understanding both.

The imposition of VAT is nothing to do with public benefit and is purely a money-making opportunity from Labour - but it may not in the end make much if any money.

No biggie is it.

The tiny proportion of children who apply for a bursary from the tiny proportion of children who attend private school.

You speak a lot of sense

It is not a class split. It is a financial one. We both come from council housing, but have chosen a private education for dc. There are plenty of others like us at our school. And actually, we fit right in. I have not experienced any issue with hierarchies.

Private school parents are now paying more in order to help state schools improve. Why do some state schools parents still feel that their DCs 'need private education'?

So private school parents pay for their own children's education + state education for all + extra for state school's further improvement + to provide private education for some state school kids whose parents are still not satisfied with the improved state provision?

and even these school have their class and financial hierarchies.

@CillaDog i don’t understand what that means.

Was that a bursary or a skills based scholarship

Scholarships above 50 per cent are prohibited by the HMC code. So 75 per cent off - the extra 25 per cent would be a bursary, if a HMC code/code alternative school - most prestigious schools have signed up to these codes.

@Snugglemonkey your school must be an exception, or your area is very different to mine.

There is very much a class divide, and there is a difference between those that can afford, those that afford with help, and those on scholarship or bursary in our area. There was even a divide between those who had money family-wise, and those considered "newer" money through business.

If you can't afford school trips, don't have the right holidays, don't live in the right area, all impacted the experiences offered at private school. From what group you're in, the work experience you get, invites to parties etc. parents not invited to lunches out as mum works rather than being a SAHM etc.

As I say this may just have been our area - in which case hats off to you for finding a not class divided private school.

“As for disproportionate tax paying private parents, that's a myth they peddle to themselves. We don't use state schools so we are essentially "paying more" as our tax is paying for some others to go to school. There are huge swathes of childless people whose tax goes towards schools, people who have private healthcare paying tax towards the NHS they never use, and non-car drivers paying council tax towards pot holes on roads they will never drive. It is a mark of being a member of society that you don't always directly benefit from a tax paid, and unless you're earning well in excess of £125,000 a year (in which case school fees should be no problem) the reality is your tax is a very small amount in relation to spending and is probably accountable for a few bits of paper at a local school.”

@CillaDog , I don’t think I’ve seen any independent school parents objecting to paying their share of state school costs via normal taxation (as aside from complaints about levels of taxation generally).

But what is happening here is that indy school parents are being asked to pay more for a service they are not using than those people who are using it.

Why should indy school parents alone shoulder this extra tax demand when the people in my town who earn healthy 6 figure salaries (and spend £1m-£2m+ to move 300m to get in the catchment of the well-regarded secondary) don’t have to contribute anything more for the state education their children are receiving?

I’ve posed this question a few times on these boards and funnily enough no one seems able to answer it.

Would it be fair to ask child-free people to contribute more towards the state school bill than parents, or healthy people to pay more towards the NHS which they may be using only minimally themselves?

This ideological objection is quite aside from the fact it seems increasingly unlikely this policy will lead to any meaningful improvements in state schools whatsoever.

So the policy fails on both ideological and practical grounds.

Maybe there could be an extra stamp duty for moving into Outstanding catchments? Only on the top 10% of houses, to start with?
It could go directly to the struggling schools in the same area.

I’d say this is disingenuous.

VAT on services is the default. It’s not an additional top up tax. It’s the removal of an exemption.

An exemption that exclusively benefits the more privileged in society.

A child free couple spending money on consumer goods would pay VAT, so they are already contributing

“An exemption that exclusively benefits the more privileged in society.”

It is not that simple. Other civilised countries do not do this because Education is seen as a social good. You are basically stating that educating some children is a service and making an ideological decision based on what forms of education are exempt and what forms are not.

Or in Trump’s words, it is a tariff for US citizens being educated in the UK including in US schools.
It is really short sighted as the impacts are potentially far far wider than anyone can imagine. In terms of seeing the UK as a civilised country that values education and its inherent good for all and benefits to society.