Private schools to go bust in the coming recession

[ampletime]

The mother of all recessions is coming in my view. The world economy is pushing towards a large scale and deep debt crises. This follows the explosion of government deficits, borrowing, and leverage in recent decades and now that debt is growing due to high interests. Governments are in eye watering debt, individuals are in debt and so are private schools.
In the last 5 years private schools have been on spending sprees with new builds and new facilities mostly for marketing appeal rather than need. But it’s all been funded on debt. I work for a building service solution company and the number of private schools in the last 5 years have exploded on our books all funded by debt.

I know of one boarding school now in trouble and they have sold off their build and it will be converted to flats.

Be careful folks out there. Times are not as good as these schools portray.

1. private schools have survived many recessions, including The Great Depression
2. they'll cut costs, or diversify, or invite more overseas boarders
3. it is correct the VAT loophole will be closed
4. school population is falling generally so there won't be huge pressure
5. if the recession will be so terrible, private school closures are the least of our worries, I'm worried about council bankruptcies and care home closures which will affect the poorest most

So much hate for private schools.

If they can afford to send their DC to private, good for them I say. If those schools close, where do you think those children will go?

Parents that are lucky enough to afford private also pay taxes that fund state schools. Why don't people get that?

If the haters here won the lottery, are you really saying you wouldn't want the best education for your kids? Smaller class sizes, better aftercare and clubs etc. Or would you keep them in a class of 30 and keep your money in the bank?

I know what I would do, that's for sure.

State schools are closing as well. A few couples having fewer children as they can't afford private school for them. Many couples having fewer or no children as they can't afford them at all.

@duchiebun University fees have allowed millions more to go to university. Around 50% don’t pay off the loans so it’s been more of a tax. In a growing economy, degree holders are more likely to benefit. Research shows they mostly do benefit from better jobs and pay. So they now pay a tax. Previously taxpayers funded everything despite the vast majority not having a degree. Parents have made contributions for decades. So if we want more at university, grads will have to take some fiscal responsibility.

Housing is probably the big issue. Costz rising due to lack of availability. However as fewer people are on couples, going it alone on one salary was always expensive. This is down to not building enough. However few want bigger towns and fewer green fields. We do need a different approach and that will be compromise.

I always think it odd that anyone thinks the better off will mix with people not like them: on any level. We have private health, we have private dentistry, we have private memberships of clubs, we have all sorts of ways we don’t choose to mix. The elderly mostly pay for space in care homes! It’s not free for many.

Where we live defines us in many ways. We work hard and get qualifications to move up and often away from poverty. Otherwise what’s the point? That doesn’t mean people won’t pay their fair share but they want choice on how they spend money. When people do make a step up, everyone on the left then wants choice taken away and you are told you should not have more than others! We need an aspirational society. Not a jealous one.

This is the reason I chose private over state (seniors). I was mercilessly bullied at my state comp which took many years (decades) to recover from (if I even have). It completely coloured my view in sending my own (quiet, reserved, studious) children to the local comp. Luckily I was in a position to send them to private and I’ve never regretted it. (If I’d gone to private and was bullied there I’d probably have sent mine to state). They had a much much better school experience than I had so for that it was worth every penny.

My children are old enough that their early education was under a Labour government and my experience was that schools were visibly better funded. Money will solve problems like paying the current astronomical fuel bills and fixing buildings but issues like behaviour can't be fixed with money. There needs to be deeper reform like schools not being penalised for permanent exclusions and places that will provide an education for kids who can't or shouldn't be in mainstream. The idea that everyone should be in mainstream is all about money saving imo and supporting those kids properly makes the school experience better for others too. I went to state until 11 and I didn't witness recurring violent behaviour towards staff and other pupils. There were playground spats that turned violent or bullying but this was sorted quickly and wasn't tolerated until year 6 just because.

The responses to this thread thread basically shows the policy is mainly about "sticking it to the rich".

Except many of these schools are not "for the rich" but for kids that need, for a variety of reasons, smaller classes to access the education every child has a right to. However, the extra 20% will mean many of the parents will no longer be able to afford the fees, the schools will close and these kids will end up in a state system that can't manage them if they are neurotypical and certainly can't if they have SEND. As a point of interest, the £6k that is supposed to go to every child with SEND a year in support is a total misnomer - it's closer to half that and this will only go further down when the inevitable influx happens.

The public schools, however, like Eton, Harrow etc (to whom you are trying to "stick it"), have deep pockets, as do the parents. I know this, cos our children are at one of these schools and the raise is water off a ducks back and life will just carry on as before.

But you continue with this policy, and continue to stick it to nobody apart from those that need that extra help the most.

@TizerorFizz Im not convinced todays or tmw uni students are getting a good return. I had a loan but it was much smaller.

I always think it odd that anyone thinks the better off will mix with people not like them: on any level

Do you think it’s odd? I guess for the global elite but I have neighbours who paid 1.5m for their house & earn £££ & neighbours who are HA. Kids go to the same school. I know wealthy people who don’t pay for private healthcare & then ordinary people who get it via work.

We need an aspirational society. Not a jealous one.

I think there’s far more nuance personally. People don’t start out on the same level & social mobility isn’t great regardless of how hard you work. Pointing out inequality doesn’t equal jealously.

It’s not just about how hard you work @duchiebun. It’s what work you do. That’s what leads to social mobility. Plus for many, it’s already happened. However being savvy about degree and uni is hugely important. The degree with the best overall return is medicine. You are right, the gap is closing re degree and non degree earnings but most degree holders do still earn more. IFS has data. Far fewer wanting to study some subjects though and a great over supply of arts degrees. Others, if they want a decent career, will get one.

In my life I’ve seen little mixing. Usually the intelligent mix with similar. Similar earnings produce similar interests. We don’t have social housing in my village. Near villages did - but sold off to the new middle classes. Former tenants. So they aspired to owning a home, Dc going to grammars and getting good jobs. No looking back from what I’ve seen. Do they mix with anyone from a disadvantaged area? Absolutely not. They mix with people like them. We are hard wired to do this. Those who don’t like where they come from are often keen to escape it. Eg very decent educational results from immigrants

I don’t want to derail the thread but I think you are misunderstanding me. My point is someone from a disadvantaged background is far less likely to study medicine at uni. It’s not just about being savvy, exposure & opportunities matter.

And I would argue junior doctors aren’t paid particularly well now hence my point about wage stagnation.

I’m a Londoner so diversity is much more common here.

Those who don’t like where they come from are often keen to escape it. Eg very decent educational results from immigrants

As a 2nd gen immigrant I think it’s quite complex & it’s not a matter of immigrant dc do well so why don’t native dc copy them.

this is strawman though, I mentioned private schools and golf clubs... citing a local example and explaining why... and nothing else.

because its entrenching social inequities... and genuinely, no I would not pay for private school for my kids if I won the lottery- unless of course their school was crap.

The ideal solution to crap state provision is not to increase private provision by the way.

Nope it's not about sticking it to the rich. It's about wanting a fair system for everyone.

Parents' income has nothing to do with the child... it doesn't sit right with me that some children get a much better education than others by dint of birth. Not exactly a level playing field is it?

I was a teacher under Labour and the difference btw then and now is marked/stark.

strawman argument...

just because I am against private education, doesn't mean I am against wealth, nice houses, nice holidays etc.

agreed

I agree. Can I assure everyone here, that even though I am not rich, I am not poor. I have my own home and a job that pays decently. My children attend a good school, it's not perfect, but they are happy.

I am against private schools in principle because I believe in a fairer society and believe we all benefit from this- lower crime, increased social mobility etc etc.

I think it's very eyeroll-y when people who want things to be fairer are accused of being "jealous". It's not the best argument is it?

Our local state primaries are reducing their rolls (even the outstanding ones) and cutting from three form entry to two. I think they can absorb a couple of private school pupils.

Although I quite enjoy the fact that my son has 22 children in his state primary class and my colleagues’ children in the local super selective indy prep have 25!

Can I ask you this- in an ideal world, do you think you should pay ££££ for your children to access decent education?

@Saschka thats not sustainable long term though. Those primaries need the max numbers for funding.

No I realise that, though it is nice while it lasts. Year 4 in his school currently only has one form, and two schools in the borough have shut (they were rated good, so not failing - just in an area of depopulation).

Just saying we do actually have plenty of room to accommodate an exodus of private school kids in our outstanding primary.

Just shows which school is more popular despite class size and which one is looking at costs more closely because it needs to in order to remain viable. Lots of issues with state school funding is about less then optimal numbers on roll and class sizes. Schools don’t reduce costs quickly enough even though they get 3 year budget projections! Not having 8 Dc in a class means a lot of money isn’t in the school. Often state schools should merge and federate too. Where I live, many village schools would close if it wasn’t for parents driving out each morning from towns clogging the roads. These are far more than those who walk to school.

Not at all. You like the free market but only when it suits you.

You don’t get to choose, that’s the point of a free market.

personally I think cigarettes should be banned and alcohol should be taxed at triple the current rate.

But it’s a free market so despite my desires, it ain’t happening.

Just saying we do actually have plenty of room to accommodate an exodus of private school kids in our outstanding primary.

i agree with that

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2022/jul/14/pupil-numbers-in-england-set-to-shrink-by-near-1m-in-10-years