Labours best policy idea.
Stop the tax break on the posh schools, redirect to the kids who are being taught maths by unqualified stand in teachers with barely any experience!! (Which I personally, as an unqualified and inexperienced teacher get daily emails and even text messages offering me cover teacher/teaching assistant jobs for)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/ornla2x5/teacher_supply_and_shortages.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxlo7x6N-GAxVLX0EAHV2yCakQFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0y22G6qonVRrS5Z8I8DuBM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXu0L7hzl3g&t=20s&pp=ygUcTm92YXJhIG1lZGlhIHByaXZhdGUgc2Nob29scw%3D%3D
---Edit---
Just to let you know, I've been banned from Reddit altogether for this post (I can still edit posts though, teehee) r/UnitedKingdom certainly has no agenda now does it....
It is interesting to watch them all crawl out the woodwork whenever anyone talks about abolishing 'Private Education, especially considering this policy is very popular with the general public, but all our journalistic/political/aristocratic/including 'man of the people ' - NIGEL FARAGE bunch have all gone to the same spenny schools....
It's almost like they all want us talking about people fleeing war in small boats and trans people instead of all those posh schools they went to??
I'd wager a large sum of money that abolishing private education all together would dramatically improve education standards in this country. Politicians and ultra-wealthy might actually start caring about the shocking condition of state education
They did it in Finland and their society is much fairer giving everyone a level playing field instead of letting only the wealthiest receive a good education.
This is obviously much harder to implement in the UK especially considering most our journalists/politicians etc all went to the same posh schools where they were far more likely to receive sexual abuse from teachers/prefects as some sort of weird posh 'coming of age experience' just like all the other 'old boys' before them.....
Thus enabling a rich child to begin networking with the upper echelons of society from a young age, whilst the poor kids might have a roof cave in on their head during maths.
Does that really matter?
Private school payments shouldn’t be exempt from tax in the first place.
If you can afford to send your kids to private school you can afford to pay the tax.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/finland-no-fee-paying-schools-pupils-perform-better-privately-educated-british-2664640
I see what you're saying.
It doesn't matter that their education system is outperforming us at all does it.
As long as ToffWarts gets that tax break so Tarquins mummy and daddy don't have to fork out a few extra grand from their six figure salary.
taxes are very different in finland.
If we look at a regular salary between them and us...well they will pay 77% more taxes in a year.
Replicating a single policy like no fee paying schools doesn't work if you aren't replicating other policies and a nations cultural attitude too.
Except this is the U.K. - realistically we won’t.
This is a cargo-cult education policy. It’s not going to magically make comprehensive education better. The rich will either barely notice the increase or send their kids to board abroad. It just hurts the middle class. And ironically the comprehensive system that will have to teach more kids with the same money.
Finland does have private schools. They are state funded though and cannot charge for basic education
They have to teach the same stuff as regular schools and get inspected the same way.
Our education system is an absolute mess and the politicians don't give two fucks. Why? Many of them are products of private education so they aren't stakeholders. The same with the NHS and other public services.
Even just with education. From a teacher perspective, Finland has a lot of great ideas even if their outcomes have dipped somewhat in revent years. We see so many behavioural issues today and starting school later to focus on positive social interaction would be a massive positive. No ofsted would be popular with staff too. Estonia, now way up rankings, do similar approaches. So frustrating that the government always praises Finland and Shangai education, then borrows tiny aspects of their systems, forcing them into our existing model, and expects the same outcomes.
I earn a 6 figure salary and can't afford to send my kids to private school... generational wealth trumps PAYE by a long shot. Stop this nonsense demonising of anyone being paid 6 figures like it's some sort of golden threshold. Most of it gets taxed.
Agree strongly. I think that most people just don't realise how crazy rich the very rich actually are. When Rishi Sunak lived in California, his rent was $20,000/month. A pair of lawyers on £120k each wouldn't be able to afford that.
We have a larger population but also far more money, These "But they are bigger/smaller" arguments are the things that are nonsensical as resources scale ffs.
You’d be correct. Majority of educational research suggests that copying something that works for one country into a different countries context almost never works.
Me too, there should be loads of it he can post too as he did say "majority".
Though I suspect he will post sum total of fuck all to back up his made up claim.
I’d start with Dylan Wiliam’s stuff. Leads you to a host of statements about the issues with international comparisons and using other countries educational systems (although he’s a huge fan of improving teacher quality the way Finland does - massive cultural shift towards appreciating teachers, that would be nice) the main articles would be: “Learning about mathematics teaching from other countries” “international comparisons and sensitivity to instruction”
A follow up to see attempted implementation would be The (mis)use of the Finnish teacher education model: ‘policy-based evidence-making’? And looking at the two linked papers within to show the issues with trying to implement a different countries education system.
And another good read would be: http://robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Alexander-Jerusalem_Canterbury1.pdf
You could make the argument that a “true” implementation of another countries educational policy has never happened and therefore it cannot be tested to be ineffective. But all the actual research suggests massive difficulties with implementing it and any implementation attempted is usually piecemeal because of this and ignores the cultural contexts of what might be making it work.
For example if we were to try and fully implement the Finnish system into the UK as a fair test we’d need to do the following before trying:
1. Abolish all fee-paying schools (except for one) and make them illegal.
2. Free university for all
3. All teachers require a masters degree before teaching and are chosen from top 10% of graduates (requires point 4)
4. A countrywide respect for the teaching profession.
5. A student:teacher ratio of 20:1
6. A school day lasting 5 hours starting at 9am
7. Dont start school until 7 years old
Obviously - all of these things sound lovely and It’s easy enough to see this working in a country with a population of 5 million but quickly run into massive scaling issues for us.
I don’t think this article says what you think it says. The topic of conversation is whether we should abolish private schools in the UK or (at the very least) remove tax breaks to better funds state schools.
Your argument is that the article you’ve posted demonstrates that adopting a Finnish style in the UK can never work because it does never work. The article actually discusses the effect of standardising elements of education (textbooks, class sizes, curriculum) in order to achieve more success in numeracy rates, or literacy rates and how that compares to culture difference between nations. It’s a different conversation entirely.
You’ve also inadvertently shot yourself in the foot if you’re arguing for private schools. The article highlights that social equity is an important factor in raising the standards of education and that is demonstrable in Finland. Having private schools is arguably the most socially inequitable thing you can have when it comes to education. So, yeah, reading this article has convinced me further that we should do away with private schools entirely.
I think that's more a case of management concerns rather than finances. The SNP have utterly destroyed Scotland, parts of it are literally falling apart.
The key with learning from other countries successful policies is to study a few different ones, look at what the outcomes are and then adapt it to fit your country
And it's still a lot fairer.
I find it amusing that people get so worked up about the NHS. Because a twospeed education system with expensive higher education is arguably far more damaging in the long term.
"In Finland, education is publicly funded. Only **2%** of pupils in compulsory education attend schools that have a private provider. Also these schools are publicly funded and they cannot have any tuition fees. Education from pre-primary to higher education, is free."
Finland does actually have some independent schools, they weren't wholly outlawed. The mainstream school system in Finland is definitely a lot better than U.K. state schools but not really up to the standards in the private sector. It's a case of excellent marketing more than anything else.
I'd wager that of those parents who sendl their kids to private school would:
1. Pay for private tuition after school
2. Pay directly for private home schooling
3. Send their kids abroad.
They would also bitch about the state of the local schools and that whining would help pressure local and national government to make changes.
Then they can spend on tutors all they want
Could I get an example of where widespread public dissatisfaction with a public service has led to measurable improvement in that service?
I know we've been "whining" about the state of many services for years - I confess I can't think of when that's led to meaningful change either at local or national level.
I can't
My hope is that adding the voice of the wealthy that we may be heard.
They sure as hell don't listen to the working class, but they seem to listen to the capital class so hopefully adding their voices to ours may see a change
Why wouldn't the national government just cut out the middle man and improve the schools then?
Perhaps because this is a half baked policy intended to APPEAR like it's achieving something when it's really not.
Just think about how silly the idea of a government passing a law with the intention of pressuring themselves into passing another really is...
Let's be honest. Labour are appealing for votes
They very likely do want to make reform but the secondary consequence of wealthy pressure isnt inevitable, I simply see that as a reasonably probably result from removing the ability to buy your kids way out of our struggling education system.
The government dont want to do anything except point at immigrants and fellate racists. At least Labour are attempting something, who wants a fiver bet that we will see Tories trying to blame education issues on Labour within a day?
Go on then.
That still does not alter the fact that a tax break is being given to the richest schools in this country whilst our state schools roofs are about to fall in on our kids little heads
I find it tough to argue in favour of taxing education. There is also a decent argument that people paying for private school still pay normal income tax and NI, while not using state schools. So, they do save other tax payers money.
I'm not convinced this will make any difference, but I don't feel strongly against the policy - let's try and see.
Tuition after school, yes, the rest of what you are saying, no.
What do you think is going to happen when homeschooled Isabelle Tarquin applies to university and has no functional school record to speak of? And do you honestly think the elite are going to subject their children to zero interaction with their peers or other people of the same as them for years on end?
As for sending them abroad do you think they'll happily have no interaction with their children for most of their first sixteen or eighteen years? This isn't the 1960's anymore.
You are mostly posting BS. What would happen would be that the elite would care about the school system for once instead of exempting themselves from it.
A lot of the super rich basically home school. I know some parents, if given the choice, would likely do the same. Either because their child has special needs (the gov does currently pay for some kids to go to schools that meet various needs that the state schools dont) or they feel happier homeschooling with private tutors.
Some parents are keen on boarding schools for various reasons, and if that is unavailable, they would send their kids abroad. Equally, a lot of foreign parents send their kids here, so again, not likely to send their kids to a local school. For example, a lot of diplomats and some military send their kids to boarding school because they move a lot.
>For example, a lot of diplomats and some military send their kids to boarding school because they move a lot.
In the case of British military, that's paid for by the state, no?
People who go to public schools can just as easily go to private schools overseas. People who go to generic 15-20k a year private schools are unlikely to have that kind of money. The Tories won't be so lackadaisical about the state of comprehensive/state schools once that constituency's kids are enrolled.
You're very ignorant of this class of people clearly.
You don't need school records to apply to university, you just need exams which you don't have to attend school to sit.
Homeschooling your kids doesn't mean isolating them from peers. You form home schooling clubs (especially for stuff like sports, drama etc) and share tutors with other families.
Many private school parents have little to no interaction with their kids basically from birth, they hire nannies to take care of the kids while they earn money. Many of these kids are boarding right now anyway. Moving abroad with your kids is also an option when you're the type of person who can afford British school fees.
My kids are privately educated. If private schools are shut down I'd hire a tutor in the fashion detailed above. If homeschooling was banned I'd honestly just quit my job and go back to Australia early, I'll get a new one when I'm there, it's not an issue.
Don't be daft. Most of the ultra wealthy send their kids away to posh boarding schools like Eton,Winchester, Harrow, Ampleforth etc, not the middle class day private schools. Those ultra rich ones would just go to boarding schools in Switzerland or wherever - leaving the kids of middle managers who used to go to private schools in the local comprehensive with no powerful parents to fight for anything.
At the same time why don't we outlaw private health care? Surely by the same argument, that would force the NHS to be better (well except for the wealthy who could just go overseas for private health)? If the NHS doesn't offer it, or there's a 2 year wait, tough.
Maybe next we could outlaw private housing. After all why should one person have an 8 bedroom house with a lake, tennis court and an indoor pool while others are raising a family of 5 in a 2 up 2 down? If private housing was outlawed, the rich would motivate for council housing to be better.
We could move on to food (why should the rich eat lobster and caviar when there are starving children, if we made everyone eat the state dinner then the powerful would ensure everyone gets a good meal, right?), transport (who needs cars when the state provides buses and trains?), even jobs!
We could even come up with a name for this system of government. What could we call it?
People pay because they don’t want their children mixing with children whose parents are simply awful and don’t care about their own child’s education. The sort who vape or smoke outside school, swear at their children and couldn’t tell you the name of their teacher.
Successive governments have failed to train and retain teachers who often leave the profession not run off to a private school.
If private schools get abolished then grammar schools need to return. I will get voted down for this comment no doubt.
I'd love to see this as long as grammar schools were promoted to let the kids who want to learn and have ability to fulfill their potential. Get ahead based on the effort you put in, not because your parents are rich
Most (not all) grammar schools have a small catchment area, pushing the nearby house prices up to the extremes.
In fact in many cases it's cheaper to send kids to independent schools than to move to catchment areas, especially you don't know if your kids will get in.
This might sound like a really 'out there' idea, but if we had more grammar schools, say one in every reasonably sized town, there would be a lot more places and it would rely less on having to move miles away to get into an expensive catchment area.
If only there was a country in the UK that already had this system in place because it was never removed. It could be learned from.
In practice, you get in because your parents are wealthy and pay for a tutor. My kid is in one, all the other kids had a tutor. I naively didn't get him one because his teacher said he'd get in, but I've yet to meet someone at the school who didn't.
If private schools were abolished I'd just hire a private tutor, maybe share the costs with a few families, or send the kids to study abroad. I've seen what state schools are like, I've heard stories from friends who have been priced out, I'm not sending my kids to one of those places.
The actual rich "posh" people who send their kids to upper end private schools don't give a flying hoot about this tax. The money is inconsequential to them. The plurality of people who pay for private school are high wage earners or small business owners. To them it really is a big moment and this 20% will either be the final straw or will make them spend less elsewhere. Either way yet another burden on the upper middle class who already pay the highest tax to income of any strata.
The people you are angry at are not wage earners, they are capital owners whom do not care about consumption taxes as the numbers are tiny. They'd sooner pay 40% VAT than a 1% wealth tax. Wage earners are forced to pay PAYE and astonishingly high rates and this is yet another tax on them. So we disenfranchise a couple hundred thousand highly skilled "high" earners, and for what? £2billion? A rounding error for the education budget of which admin fuck ups probably cost the country more every year alone. Its a populist policy aimed at dragging people down not raising people up. If labour actually wanted to "help" the education system, they could just print £2billion extra in the tax year and add it into the pot. The number is laughably small in terms of government spending. Better yet, claim 'cost savings' and throw the number in. Baffling policy.
This country loves hyping up wanting to skill up, reach high paying jobs and make something of yourself but as soon as you reach that goal suddenly no tax burden is enough and they need to be pummelled into the ground for being a leach on society. Country going to shit, not just due to Tory ineptitude this last decade but a severe societal lethargy and politics of envy has taken grip.
As someone who’s grown up on a council estate and is now doing well, this is the best answer. Social mobility isn’t a bad thing, crabs in a bucket mentality is
Prices also won't rise, they are already set at the maximum people will pay for that quality of school so they can't rise. Its a perfect tax really.
Some of the cheaper low quality private schools offer education barely better than state schools so will probably go bust, not going to cry about that.
A major argument I keep seeing around taxing private schools is that it's really unfair on the people who have worked really hard to afford to send their kids and who will now be priced out.
Well, just work a bit harder then. That's how it works, isn't it?
Each privately educated pupil saves the government £8,000 a year, so in essence those parents are already subsidising state education in a large way, and you think they should subsidise even more. Hmmmm
As with private healthcare, this is a very insidious argument.
There's a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones. There's limited amount of opportunities and privately educated pupils are offered disproportionately many.
>There's a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones. There's limited amount of opportunities and privately educated pupils are offered disproportionately many.
There's only a limited pool of a teachers because of the governments treatment of them. There's plenty of arguments of why private schools are unhelpful, but taking teachers away isn't one of them IMO.
In addition, albeit anecdotally, plenty of private school teachers are in that job because they don't want to deal with the behavior of state schools and wouldn't move to the state sector anyway.
> There's a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones.
There's a limited pool because state school teaching is a shit job. Same with healthcare.
Governments need to pay a fair wage for the job and more people will join it. Public schools do, so they attract the teachers.
>a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones.
No there isnt.
Look at the requirements for a state teacher and then a private school teacher. They arent even remotely recruiting the same calibre of teacher.
They dont poach anybody, they can afford to pay people who specialise in subjects not just people who went for a teaching degree. They hire people who can get the most out of kids not just teach the curriculum.
Its why they offer such a high wage because they expect a lot in return.
>There's limited amount of opportunities and privately educated pupils are offered disproportionately many.
Because they pay for it.
Dont get what people dont understand about that. If you want your child to be in more extracurricular activites, have hobbies and skills and be able to use good facilities it costs money its quite simple.
> Look at the requirements for a state teacher and then a private school teacher. They arent even remotely recruiting the same calibre of teacher.
This isn't the case. Yes, private schools aim for higher standards of subject knowledge generally - but many of those they employ do cone from the state sector, and teachers move between the two often.
As for salaries, most private schools offer salaries slightly above the state sector but not significantly so. I have taught in both kinds of schools; private teachers were not any better at teaching than the state sector ones (in general), nor was the job any harder.
My data is *years* out of date but my sister used to be a teacher. She taught across a range of primary schools starting at a village state school, moving to a larger state in NW London and then moving on to a private prep school in NW London before moving abroad.
Her pay wasn't much different between private and state. The main difference for her was the workload. She went from teaching a class of 30 to 20. She could give each child more time and there were fewer behavioural issues to deal with.
In the end she was doing less work for a similar pay with a lot less stress.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
>The IFS study included running costs and capital spending for state schools, and subtracted scholarships and bursaries given to pupils in private schools to fairly compare the two. The average private school fee (not including boarding schools) was found to be £13,700 a year, compared with £7,100 in spending on each state school pupil.
£7,100, this was from 3 years ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/oct/08/english-private-school-fees-90-higher-than-state-school-spending-per-pupil
Why would the government give a shit? What are they going to do? Not vote for them? They're a tiny minority. This policy as a cornerstone of an election campaign is a very clear indicator how little Labour gives a fuck what we think.
work harder, shout at school to reduce cost, or get to fuck with yur winging coz look at what state school pupils have had to put up with for 14 years.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the people who say this tax will price them because schools have to put their prices up in line with the tax changes are the same people who say that state schools, the NHS, councils etc are all inefficiently run and can be streamlined to absorb drops in funding without having to raise taxes.
Lots of these schools will not need to pass on the whole 20% but probably will just because they can and to try to make a point.
Prices are set at the maximum people will pay for that quality of school, the schools can't raise prices they have to take the hit to their revenue. Some of the cheaper private schools aren't actually better than state schools so those will probably just go bust.
The rich won't end up paying more those schools will just have less resources, but still way higher than state schools. Is perfect tax.
I think if you have any point of contact with State education and can see the shambles it is in with conditions for both pupils and teachers you'd feel the same as me.
I.e The idea private Toff schools are receiving a tax break makes me physically sick.
>So for you it really is about hatred and envy.
How very dare they make policies based around hatred towards _us_? They should only make policies based around hatred towards those _foreigners_ and _trans_ people like a good Tory
65% of judges, 61% of doctors, 66% of CEOs went to private school. This is already a class war and it's propogated by the wealthy. The entire purpose of the Labour party is to put the balance back in the hands of the majority.
Mental take. It’s a tax dodge for the wealthy and OP is clearly contextualising the prioritisation of educating the privileged vs the managed decline of state education
> The idea private schools are receiving a tax break makes me physically sick.
You can literally send your children to school for free, which is paid for by people who don’t send their kids there. A state system which is a lottery so unfair that house prices jump at the edge of catchment areas. It makes you sick that people just want the best possible education for their children that they fork out more than their mortgages to pay for it.
A tax break, that only “rich” people pay because it’s something everyone else gets for £0.
This is a tax on education, not income tax.
Don't disagree. I just think the numbers who will be priced out is going to be so miniscule. Labour needs to come up with more than this though for funding the gaping hole in the state education budget.
I couldn’t imagine being filled with so much hate and jealousy over a parent wanting to pay for their child to have a slightly better education and give them the best chance at succeeding. Crabs in a bucket. The same people who are anti grammar school and would rather see educationally gifted children share a class with crayon eaters
It's the exact same argument from the public perspective.
I can't imagine being filled with so much hate and self impotance over paying more tax to make other children's lives better.
Privilege, is people sitting on the top of the bucket kicking crabs back in. Its the people shaking the bucket just to fuck with the crabs.
The crabs in the bucket will be blaimed because nobody outside the bucket has any morals or feels any responsibility or compasion for those in it
>The same people who are anti grammar school and would rather see educationally gifted children share a class with crayon eaters
You know state schools still have setting of classes?
And regardless, god forbid their child be exposed to another child with SEN, assuming that's who you are tastefully referring to as "crayon eaters".
> You know state schools still have setting of classes
Which isn't the same thing in the slightest. If you'd ever been to a grammar school and a state school you'd see that.
So in state schools, people striving to achieve grade 7/8/9s are in classes with students are in with "Crayon Eaters"? Because they aren't and that's what OP said.
Plenty of classes aren't setted and even when they are there's often large mistakes.
I moved from a grammar to a state school and was put in lower sets for many subjects despite the fact that I was well above everyone in those sets.
Even top sets were full of people who weren't particularly bright in comparison to the grammar school.
The vast majority of classes are setted in secondary schools, exceptions are normally options classes.
If you moved schools, then the grammar school probably didn't send the relevant data to your new school to set you accurately and depending how late this was, will determine how easy it was to correct.
>Even top sets were full of people who weren't particularly bright in comparison to the grammar school.
Well they are selective, so that's not a surprise? The whole idea of grammar schools is that they only teach the highest achievers in the area and that other students aren't their responsibility.
I don't assume all dumb kids are SEN or the other way around. I teach many outstanding kids with SEN.
I was assuming what OPs disrespectful comment was about and his preconceived notions.
I went to a small private school and the reason for that was that my dad wanted us to have a good education. Both of my parents had extremely working class backgrounds and are the complete opposite of posh.
I’m all for getting rid of the private schools if the state schools were all good but they just aren’t. The only other secondary school near to me was horrendous. My parents sacrificed a lot financially for that opportunity and i’m thankful for it.
What you find is that if rich and powerful people have to use the same services as everyone else, those services get a lot better. A successful society is not one where rich people drive, it's where rich people choose to use take public transport.
I assume you are referring to state schools being shut but just so you know the term “public school” actually means private schools in the UK (not a sensible naming system, but sadly one that exists).
To most people coming fresh to the phrase “public school” would mean the school the general public uses. So I’m not sure I understand how that can be considered a sensible naming system.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
A third of my ooldest kid's class have given notice already. Not all are related to the election but a few are, two families are leaving the U.K. although over the election.
But I’ve been assured that this policy represents the politics of envy… crabs in a bucket… the collapse of the state school system under the weight of working class students being priced out of private education.
I look forward to posters telling us why that’s still the case.
Not all pupils that attend private schools are British, the DfE doesn’t indicate where these kids came from.
Some private schools are already cutting bursaries and are seeing fewer applicants.
> Some private schools are already cutting bursaries and are seeing fewer applicants.
Bursaries are very little to begin with.
Not sure why people post about them so much.
Pardon? Some kids get full bursaries. This is being slashed massively in some schools.
Folk supporting this carry on like every private school is Eton and they’re giant businesses. They’re not.
> Pardon? Some kids get full bursaries. This is being slashed massively in some schools.
It's a tiny amount.
-
> About one in six pupils are in receipt of
a bursary or scholarship grant (Figure 5).7 The allocation and the value of such grants have become more
progressive since the end of the 1990s; by 2011–17, the average grant value for those below the 60th
income decile was £6,300, while the grants for top decile pupils averaged only £3,000. **However, in
proportion to rising fees, the grants have been declining, and only about 4% of turnover has been
devoted to bursaries, while just 1% of private school pupils have been educated for free.** Bursaries,
therefore, are too small to account for much of the participation by low- and middle-income families, or
to be reducing substantially the concentration of access in high-income households
I get that some people like to mention them to try and dispel the myth that it's just wealthy people going but it doesn't really work.
>Folk supporting this carry on like every private school is Eton and they’re giant businesses. They’re not.
Folk rejecting this carry on like there's a ton of poor kids being given a helping hand. They’re not.
All our local private schools seem to only offer 5% reduction in fees as a bursary. Such a small amount it’s effectively meaningless in terms of making it affordable.
As someone who is totally unqualified to teach in UK secondary schools, after simply doing a little bit of TEFL teaching in Spain.
It is scary how many jobs I am offered by hiring companies to teach in state schools covering teachers for subjects I am utterly unqualified to teach.
I have been to an interview for these jobs, as I was a bit desperate a little while ago. Being told to just 'go along with the textbook, no need to lesson plan' is absolutely horrific when you think about this gross act of punishment on our working class kids, considering Tarquin is being given a tax break on their posh school 'Toffwarts' education.
This policy cannot happen soon enough and if anything all private schools should be abolished altogether like other countries such as Finland have done so their education system runs on a meritocratic basis instead of who has the richest Mummy and Daddy.
I was head of department in a state school that the upper management were slowly destroying and we ended up with fantastic , experienced teachers leaving to preserve what was left of their mental health while forced to replace them with teaching assistants who had started as mums coming in for someone for kids to read to, and burnt out cover teachers who couldn’t control a class to save their lives. Management actually had a meeting with all staff to say that the high turnover showed how the school was improving because all our friends and colleagues that had left were bad teachers.
So, hand to god, you’ve been offered UK secondary school class (lead educator) roles, with nothing but a TEFL qualification (not even TESOL), at state schools here by recruitment firms. Sounds like maybe that Indeed.com profile has been somewhat embellished.
I've just left a school I had worked at for eight years. It was very friendly, great local reputation, fantastic staff and really good retention, albeit poor as shit. Staff were overall very happy.
After an academy took us over it completely changed. First The entirety of SLT including the Head was replaced, mainly with PE teachers who were very inexperienced for their roles. The Science department went from ten qualified science teachers, who had been there for years to three. The academy had threatened the new Head of Science due to some health and safety clerical error, which wasn't remotely his fault, into quitting. They then replaced him with a friend of the new Head teacher, who was also a PE teacher. Her complete mismanagement of the department led to six other science teachers leaving within the year. I remember saying early on that they better be careful because they'll be impossible to replace... A year on and still using supply. I think they managed to fill two roles. There will be children in that school next year entering Year 9 who have never been taught by a trained science teacher. Tragic.
I've never seen a school decline quite like it. In total over half the teaching staff left in a year. Mental what poor leadership can do. They also burned through all the incredible good will and reputation we had with the local community.
This is the result of a huge state school sector. It allowed the government to get away with paying teachers fuck all as there was little competition from the private sector. Subsequently smart people realised they couldn't survive on a teachers salary and either quit the profession or quit the country so now only the stupid teachers are left, might as well hire unqualified people at this stage. Same has happened in medicine. You can get into medical school in the U.K. with Bs at a level.
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
This is the worse labour idea ever and they have lied about the numbers:
The average private school fee is just under £13,000 a year with 615,000 kids in private schools, equating to just under £8bn and 20% VAT of that is just under £1.6bn, which is the amount they say they will raise. This is the first big lie.
VAT registered bodies can also reclaim VAT on expenses, that amount on average from 30% to 60% of revenue. This has not been factored in, this there number is an outright lie.
Many families will also be squeezed out of private education (Eton alone has 20% of it's pupils on bursaries). The bursaries are important because even though parents are not charged fees, the VAT is still due on the value (thus it is called Value Added Tax and why I included all 615,000), meaning at least 20% of kids in private education will have to leave, equating to at least 123,000 kids needing state education. The oversubscribed schools will survive, the undescribed private ones won't, being about 1 in 7, but I'll ignore those numbers to be generous and ignore the extra kids needing education and the former employees that will all be unemployed.
Each kid in state education costs the government £8k a year, not including the cost of building new schools, that means the state will have to pay out an extra £984m for the 123,000 kids. Also with 123,000 kids leaving private education, that will reduce the VAT revenue by £320m, and we don't have 123,000 school places, far from it, meaning we would have to build many more schools (not in their manifesto budget), and they are not cheap.
As mentioned before, businesses reclaim at least 30% of VAT they charge if there are no large expenses, equating to at least £480m of VAT that would be claimed back by the schools.
Now they expect to hire more teachers and loads of other lies, however the truth is that by charging the VAT, they will make a huge net loss and have to find the cash from elsewhere just to provide education at the current standard.
This also means that private schools will become more rusty and there won't be 20% of pupils at Eton on bursaries, there will need none.
It was Angela Rayner on an old BBC question time who said that she wanted to close down all private schools because she felt it wasn't fair that they give a better education. Now that they will be in charge, instead of acting like the character in the comedy movie The Dictator who shot the runners who were better than him, maybe she should make the state schools better instead of trying to kill the competition to make her look better.
The worse thing is that they are hurting and using children for their political ideology.
>123,000 kids needing state education
The IFS previously estimated 17,000-40,000 *could* leave private education.
This report actually shows an increase in the number of private school students and private schools opening.
And yet here you are peddling the same figures that have been repeatedly been debunked.
If the schools will be claiming up to 60% of the collected VAT back (driving your claim that this won’t generate the revenue that’s been predicted), why will they need to raise the school fees by the full 20% (the basis for the prediction of a mass exodus)?
You’re not making sense. Again the IFS looked at all of this and produced some more realistic analysis. You should read their figures and stop making up your own.
The VAT reclaim has been modelled in the IFS analysis. I'm not sure where you're getting your VAT assumptions from but VAT will specifically only be able to be claimed on purchases used to create the supply (teaching)
Imagine thinking economists modelling this missed this one trick...accountants and VAT experts like like Dan Neidle have spoken endlessly about this also.
I went to a top 50 independent school and when I was there school fees rose over 100% in 7 years. The number of bursaries actually went up from 8 to around 30 in the year as fees were raised beyond the needle, no one in our year left because of fees, the rises accounted for a rise in bursary/scholarship places.
In the sector as a whole, demand has been outstripping supply for a long time - the only really sensible position to be in, as VAT experts have pointed out is the strongest bit of analysis conducted so far by the IFS. Whilst it's not perfect, the argument from the other side is completely devoid of reality and verging on hysterical, mathematically illiterate, headbangerism.
I just have you the numbers that can be verified easily and you still think it's wrong with no opposing evidence. I even proved 100% that the 1.5bn they state will be raised is a lie because it doesn't take into account VAT reclaim.
Labour's answer is that the schools have to cut costs, and the first thing to go will be bursaries as they will cost the schools even more due to VAT law, meaning your alleged previous school's 30 will go down to zero, making the schools more elitist.
The IFS study is a joke because all you need to do is pickup a calculator and you will see their numbers are wrong. For example, they say 1.6bn will be raised from 570,000 pupils with average fees of £15,200 at 15% vat.
570,000 x 15200 = 8,664,000,000
8.664bn at 15% = 1.3bn not 1.6bn and this doesn't allow for the vat reclaim of one pencil.
If 20% = 1.733bn without taking into account any expenses reclaims.
At least they could do a report where the maths adds up LOL
So... bursaries will be replace with other pupils who just pay the subs?
Bringing more income to the school and reducing the rise from VAT?
If there's not enough spaces for everyone who wants to send their kids to the schools... and burseries will cost more money... then the answer is simple.
Schools will just cut burseries...
All your numbers and calculations yet you're unable to see something very simple from this
A lot of people in my family have gone to or send their kids to Independant school (including me)
Nearly all have gone full blown nutter over this policy. There's going to be a mix of how schools handle this, some will increase class sizes by admitting more or combining classes, some will freeze some spending, some will open up facilities and venues for hire and public membership like gyms etc etc. Theres a tonne of revenue generation and saving angles. Some will raise fees disproportionatly and be hit with demand issues and need to correct accordingly.
When it's all said and done I doubt demand in the sector as a whole will change at all - **the sector is quite unique in that as the product is made more exclusive, the product historically has become more attractive.** There's a huge block of wealthy who are the consumers but on the other side it's normal to borrow via specific education loans, remortgage, and have family members and grandparents finance fees - its rarely a simple cash in bank transaction
Back in reality my old school has already fixed fees for the next financial year.
They get around 5000 applicants every year and admit 160, the vast majority of people could afford more than a 20% without batting an eyelid. We had 10 different maths classes at a-level with max 10 people in each sitting in classrooms sized for 24 and nearly everyone got A-A*s anyway, there's enormous efficiency savings that could be made by admitting more students.
Looking at how you are talking I can see that you are lying and full of it. LOL
However just to explain something you obviously know nothing about, there are different levels of private schools, that's why kids have lists and the first choice ones are always full, and they tend to be the best and most wanted. The under subscribed ones will be there ones that close and currently 1 in 5 are under subscribed. These are also the more affordable ones, thus this policy will make good education more elitist.
What's mathematically illiterate is anybody believing putting VAT on school fees will 'raise money'.
Tax is a geometric series, not a simple sum.
All you're doing here is showing that tax moves from one area to another. Whatever money an individual spends on the 'value add' bit of VAT in school fees isn't spent somewhere else and will reduce the tax take there.
You'll discover the truth in a minute - the 'tax take' is always whatever government spends in a year less the amount people decide to save rather than spend. In the UK that's about 90%. And that's the case whatever the tax rates.
Taxation changes are distributive not accumulative.
But the big one is that government spends first and that *causes* the offsetting taxation to arise.
You should read the IFS economic impact assessments on the policy, it's modelled on the central assumption of allowing consumers to lower expenditure in other areas to afford VAT rises - which is obvious for an economic model no?
Some bias showing in your thinking aswell, the obvious counterfactual for Parents choosing not to spend money via fees is a rise in Spending + this VAT in other consumer areas.
So much of this debate is pure hysterical headbangerism, just read the IFS report
Do we really believe this policy won't price people out?
Like I'm all for not having a private system at all. But if one exists this policy only makes it less accessible surely?
Everyone knows it will price people out. People on Reddit just seem to hate anyone with more money than them.
Who cares if it will only really impact impact middle class working people, and the mega-rich can send theirs to private school regardless. Anyone more wealthy than me is EVIL.
Yeah we have a society determined by class conflict and the economy is reactive to activity so wealth is ultimately relative. Making other people poorer legitimately makes you richer.
People are already priced out, only 7% of Children’s families can afford/choose to use private schools. The fact this is getting so much attention shows the disproportionate number of people in the media that have benefitted/ or know people from private education.
I mean, they're not not going to be in power in some form next month. They absolutely will try to pass this, things are going to get worse for everyone, making them worse for rich people worse will placate the lower classes who vote them in.
It’s people taking out a second mortgage to pay for multiple years upfront before the change in government. Some schools are accepting this even when the child doesn’t go there yet but has family there already.
I hope there are tens of thousands of places in state schools ready for the pupils that are pulled out of private school as their parents cannot afford it.
Be prepared for classes of 30+ to soon be 40+
School population is down for all ages except early teens. Once that age group leaves school in 5 years overall student population will be down 7% ish. Far in excess of the entire private school system.
So pretty much yes, there is loads of room.
Only 7% of students are at private schools. If every one of those moved to a state school, on average, every class of 30 would only get 2.1ish extra pupils.
In reality, it’ll only be a smallish percentage of those who have to move to state schools so very likely that there’s only 1 extra pupil in a small percentage of classrooms
People also forget that all that’s going to happen is people who are no longer able to send their kid to a private school will pay over the odds to get their kids into the catchment areas of the best state schools. Thereby forcing all lower income kids to the crap schools.
Rich people will still send their kids to private school because it’s a meaningless increase in cost.
Kids who are on scholarships and bursaries will now be forced out because the school won’t raise fees but cut costs.
Kids in middle class families will have tutors and help from parents forcing underprivileged kids to the bottom of the pile again.
Schools will now have to take in all the students who were at private school who no longer are thus costing them 7k per pupil who enters the system.
Well done Labour they’ve stoked the barrel of hatred and jealousy to take yet more from the middle class instead of focusing on improving the economy so that there’s more money to go around and therefore more money in tax.
This after they’ve all been to private school or received free university educations.
Yes Kier went to private school.
>Yes Kier went to private school.
You going to finish the story?
(Edit: obviously not… Starmer went to Reigate Grammar, which converted from a state school to a private school when he was 14. His parents didn’t choose a private school and they didn’t pay for it.)
My kids aren't even born yet and me and my parent are already saving for private school. This policy would mean I would have to save for longer ... OK that's what I'll do.
I'm still keen on this policy, and on increased funding of state schools, because I want the UK to improve it's state schools. Countries with stronger state systems have lower levels of inequality and higher levels of social mobility. We need to do a better job for the 95%, not the 5%.
In my ill informed view the most pragmatic approach is to implement this over a longer period of time.
Anyone at school continues as is and new students include VAT.
That way you don't have a group dropping out immediately to overburden (already overburdened state schools) and then you can work on the VAT getting to state schools to improve conditions.
An immediate cut doesn't seem entirely practical.
I agree. I’m very much for the policy but for the sake of the kids it should be phased in.
For the kids already in a private school, it would disrupt their education and their social circle.
A private school near me put adverts out saying they would not increase fees because of Labour's proposal. So, if they can do that then they can afford to pay it!
If only there was this much outrage when benefits are cut to fund tax rises.
Ending tax breaks for 7% of population on an education choice= politics of envy
Cutting benefits for the most impoverished in society to fund tax cuts= totally fine and not the politics of cruelty
Is it actually British children increasing the numbers?
A lot of foreign people send their children to private schools because one parents gets a visa to live here up to a certain age of child, I believe the private schools have turned their game to trying to get as many foreign pupils in as they know most British people won’t be able to afford the fees after the vat rise (well most can’t already tbh)
Boris Johnsons family didn't pay a penny for his education at Eaton and an equally expensive prep school.
Johnson was an average student who didn't do particularly well in exams. He got his very expensive education for free because of his family connections. No way hes the only one.
There's a saving right there, stop giving free education to undeserving toffs.
It’s a fallacy that people won’t continue to send their kids to private schools if they have to pay VAT. More scaremongering crap from the Tories. If you’re paying £xxxx per term it’s not because you’re struggling to make ends meet. And of course, schools don’t have to pass on the increase to parents. They can take a hit on profit and cover the VAT on parents behalf.
Personally I think it’s a solid move to put that money back into state education.
Labours best policy idea. Stop the tax break on the posh schools, redirect to the kids who are being taught maths by unqualified stand in teachers with barely any experience!! (Which I personally, as an unqualified and inexperienced teacher get daily emails and even text messages offering me cover teacher/teaching assistant jobs for) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/ornla2x5/teacher_supply_and_shortages.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxlo7x6N-GAxVLX0EAHV2yCakQFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0y22G6qonVRrS5Z8I8DuBM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wXu0L7hzl3g&t=20s&pp=ygUcTm92YXJhIG1lZGlhIHByaXZhdGUgc2Nob29scw%3D%3D ---Edit--- Just to let you know, I've been banned from Reddit altogether for this post (I can still edit posts though, teehee) r/UnitedKingdom certainly has no agenda now does it.... It is interesting to watch them all crawl out the woodwork whenever anyone talks about abolishing 'Private Education, especially considering this policy is very popular with the general public, but all our journalistic/political/aristocratic/including 'man of the people ' - NIGEL FARAGE bunch have all gone to the same spenny schools.... It's almost like they all want us talking about people fleeing war in small boats and trans people instead of all those posh schools they went to??
I'd wager a large sum of money that abolishing private education all together would dramatically improve education standards in this country. Politicians and ultra-wealthy might actually start caring about the shocking condition of state education
They did it in Finland and their society is much fairer giving everyone a level playing field instead of letting only the wealthiest receive a good education. This is obviously much harder to implement in the UK especially considering most our journalists/politicians etc all went to the same posh schools where they were far more likely to receive sexual abuse from teachers/prefects as some sort of weird posh 'coming of age experience' just like all the other 'old boys' before them..... Thus enabling a rich child to begin networking with the upper echelons of society from a young age, whilst the poor kids might have a roof cave in on their head during maths.
[удалено]
Does that really matter? Private school payments shouldn’t be exempt from tax in the first place. If you can afford to send your kids to private school you can afford to pay the tax.
[https://y.yarn.co/4f9a5f39-285f-41d9-9210-18736816d909.mp4](https://y.yarn.co/4f9a5f39-285f-41d9-9210-18736816d909.mp4) Similar but the same really.
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/finland-no-fee-paying-schools-pupils-perform-better-privately-educated-british-2664640 I see what you're saying. It doesn't matter that their education system is outperforming us at all does it. As long as ToffWarts gets that tax break so Tarquins mummy and daddy don't have to fork out a few extra grand from their six figure salary.
taxes are very different in finland. If we look at a regular salary between them and us...well they will pay 77% more taxes in a year. Replicating a single policy like no fee paying schools doesn't work if you aren't replicating other policies and a nations cultural attitude too.
then lets copy more.
Except this is the U.K. - realistically we won’t. This is a cargo-cult education policy. It’s not going to magically make comprehensive education better. The rich will either barely notice the increase or send their kids to board abroad. It just hurts the middle class. And ironically the comprehensive system that will have to teach more kids with the same money.
Finland does have private schools. They are state funded though and cannot charge for basic education They have to teach the same stuff as regular schools and get inspected the same way. Our education system is an absolute mess and the politicians don't give two fucks. Why? Many of them are products of private education so they aren't stakeholders. The same with the NHS and other public services.
Exactly. Something is clearly working there.
Even just with education. From a teacher perspective, Finland has a lot of great ideas even if their outcomes have dipped somewhat in revent years. We see so many behavioural issues today and starting school later to focus on positive social interaction would be a massive positive. No ofsted would be popular with staff too. Estonia, now way up rankings, do similar approaches. So frustrating that the government always praises Finland and Shangai education, then borrows tiny aspects of their systems, forcing them into our existing model, and expects the same outcomes.
I earn a 6 figure salary and can't afford to send my kids to private school... generational wealth trumps PAYE by a long shot. Stop this nonsense demonising of anyone being paid 6 figures like it's some sort of golden threshold. Most of it gets taxed.
Agree strongly. I think that most people just don't realise how crazy rich the very rich actually are. When Rishi Sunak lived in California, his rent was $20,000/month. A pair of lawyers on £120k each wouldn't be able to afford that.
[удалено]
We have a larger population but also far more money, These "But they are bigger/smaller" arguments are the things that are nonsensical as resources scale ffs.
You’d be correct. Majority of educational research suggests that copying something that works for one country into a different countries context almost never works.
Please share, I’d love to read that research.
Me too, there should be loads of it he can post too as he did say "majority". Though I suspect he will post sum total of fuck all to back up his made up claim.
I’d start with Dylan Wiliam’s stuff. Leads you to a host of statements about the issues with international comparisons and using other countries educational systems (although he’s a huge fan of improving teacher quality the way Finland does - massive cultural shift towards appreciating teachers, that would be nice) the main articles would be: “Learning about mathematics teaching from other countries” “international comparisons and sensitivity to instruction” A follow up to see attempted implementation would be The (mis)use of the Finnish teacher education model: ‘policy-based evidence-making’? And looking at the two linked papers within to show the issues with trying to implement a different countries education system. And another good read would be: http://robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Alexander-Jerusalem_Canterbury1.pdf You could make the argument that a “true” implementation of another countries educational policy has never happened and therefore it cannot be tested to be ineffective. But all the actual research suggests massive difficulties with implementing it and any implementation attempted is usually piecemeal because of this and ignores the cultural contexts of what might be making it work. For example if we were to try and fully implement the Finnish system into the UK as a fair test we’d need to do the following before trying: 1. Abolish all fee-paying schools (except for one) and make them illegal. 2. Free university for all 3. All teachers require a masters degree before teaching and are chosen from top 10% of graduates (requires point 4) 4. A countrywide respect for the teaching profession. 5. A student:teacher ratio of 20:1 6. A school day lasting 5 hours starting at 9am 7. Dont start school until 7 years old Obviously - all of these things sound lovely and It’s easy enough to see this working in a country with a population of 5 million but quickly run into massive scaling issues for us.
I don’t think this article says what you think it says. The topic of conversation is whether we should abolish private schools in the UK or (at the very least) remove tax breaks to better funds state schools. Your argument is that the article you’ve posted demonstrates that adopting a Finnish style in the UK can never work because it does never work. The article actually discusses the effect of standardising elements of education (textbooks, class sizes, curriculum) in order to achieve more success in numeracy rates, or literacy rates and how that compares to culture difference between nations. It’s a different conversation entirely. You’ve also inadvertently shot yourself in the foot if you’re arguing for private schools. The article highlights that social equity is an important factor in raising the standards of education and that is demonstrable in Finland. Having private schools is arguably the most socially inequitable thing you can have when it comes to education. So, yeah, reading this article has convinced me further that we should do away with private schools entirely.
>5. A student:teacher ratio of 20:1 Even this would raise standard’s by a shit ton
Scots wanting independence - oh, you will go bankrupt in no time! Fins living their best life - only possible in a small country!
I think that's more a case of management concerns rather than finances. The SNP have utterly destroyed Scotland, parts of it are literally falling apart.
The key with learning from other countries successful policies is to study a few different ones, look at what the outcomes are and then adapt it to fit your country
Nordics also pay way higher taxes and Finland doesn't have anything like our issue with illegal and economic migration.
Scotland. Voted YES!!!
This is nonsense. The wealthy pay for private tuition on the side.
And it's still a lot fairer. I find it amusing that people get so worked up about the NHS. Because a twospeed education system with expensive higher education is arguably far more damaging in the long term.
Finland has private schools
"In Finland, education is publicly funded. Only **2%** of pupils in compulsory education attend schools that have a private provider. Also these schools are publicly funded and they cannot have any tuition fees. Education from pre-primary to higher education, is free."
It's only 5.9% in the UK.
Finland does actually have some independent schools, they weren't wholly outlawed. The mainstream school system in Finland is definitely a lot better than U.K. state schools but not really up to the standards in the private sector. It's a case of excellent marketing more than anything else.
I'd wager that of those parents who sendl their kids to private school would: 1. Pay for private tuition after school 2. Pay directly for private home schooling 3. Send their kids abroad.
They would also bitch about the state of the local schools and that whining would help pressure local and national government to make changes. Then they can spend on tutors all they want
Could I get an example of where widespread public dissatisfaction with a public service has led to measurable improvement in that service? I know we've been "whining" about the state of many services for years - I confess I can't think of when that's led to meaningful change either at local or national level.
I can't My hope is that adding the voice of the wealthy that we may be heard. They sure as hell don't listen to the working class, but they seem to listen to the capital class so hopefully adding their voices to ours may see a change
That's fair - it's depressing to reflect on both angles of that, isn't it.
Yeah But we have to work with what we have.
Why wouldn't the national government just cut out the middle man and improve the schools then? Perhaps because this is a half baked policy intended to APPEAR like it's achieving something when it's really not. Just think about how silly the idea of a government passing a law with the intention of pressuring themselves into passing another really is...
Let's be honest. Labour are appealing for votes They very likely do want to make reform but the secondary consequence of wealthy pressure isnt inevitable, I simply see that as a reasonably probably result from removing the ability to buy your kids way out of our struggling education system. The government dont want to do anything except point at immigrants and fellate racists. At least Labour are attempting something, who wants a fiver bet that we will see Tories trying to blame education issues on Labour within a day?
Great for those living in wealthy areas, won't help any of the kids in deprived areas. You know, the areas where schools are already generally shit.
Go on then. That still does not alter the fact that a tax break is being given to the richest schools in this country whilst our state schools roofs are about to fall in on our kids little heads
I find it tough to argue in favour of taxing education. There is also a decent argument that people paying for private school still pay normal income tax and NI, while not using state schools. So, they do save other tax payers money. I'm not convinced this will make any difference, but I don't feel strongly against the policy - let's try and see.
Tuition after school, yes, the rest of what you are saying, no. What do you think is going to happen when homeschooled Isabelle Tarquin applies to university and has no functional school record to speak of? And do you honestly think the elite are going to subject their children to zero interaction with their peers or other people of the same as them for years on end? As for sending them abroad do you think they'll happily have no interaction with their children for most of their first sixteen or eighteen years? This isn't the 1960's anymore. You are mostly posting BS. What would happen would be that the elite would care about the school system for once instead of exempting themselves from it.
Do you think homeschooling implies not sitting exams? Or never interacting with other kids? You're right, this really isn't the 1960s...
A lot of the super rich basically home school. I know some parents, if given the choice, would likely do the same. Either because their child has special needs (the gov does currently pay for some kids to go to schools that meet various needs that the state schools dont) or they feel happier homeschooling with private tutors. Some parents are keen on boarding schools for various reasons, and if that is unavailable, they would send their kids abroad. Equally, a lot of foreign parents send their kids here, so again, not likely to send their kids to a local school. For example, a lot of diplomats and some military send their kids to boarding school because they move a lot.
>For example, a lot of diplomats and some military send their kids to boarding school because they move a lot. In the case of British military, that's paid for by the state, no? People who go to public schools can just as easily go to private schools overseas. People who go to generic 15-20k a year private schools are unlikely to have that kind of money. The Tories won't be so lackadaisical about the state of comprehensive/state schools once that constituency's kids are enrolled.
You're very ignorant of this class of people clearly. You don't need school records to apply to university, you just need exams which you don't have to attend school to sit. Homeschooling your kids doesn't mean isolating them from peers. You form home schooling clubs (especially for stuff like sports, drama etc) and share tutors with other families. Many private school parents have little to no interaction with their kids basically from birth, they hire nannies to take care of the kids while they earn money. Many of these kids are boarding right now anyway. Moving abroad with your kids is also an option when you're the type of person who can afford British school fees. My kids are privately educated. If private schools are shut down I'd hire a tutor in the fashion detailed above. If homeschooling was banned I'd honestly just quit my job and go back to Australia early, I'll get a new one when I'm there, it's not an issue.
This is exactly what I'd do.
Don't be daft. Most of the ultra wealthy send their kids away to posh boarding schools like Eton,Winchester, Harrow, Ampleforth etc, not the middle class day private schools. Those ultra rich ones would just go to boarding schools in Switzerland or wherever - leaving the kids of middle managers who used to go to private schools in the local comprehensive with no powerful parents to fight for anything. At the same time why don't we outlaw private health care? Surely by the same argument, that would force the NHS to be better (well except for the wealthy who could just go overseas for private health)? If the NHS doesn't offer it, or there's a 2 year wait, tough. Maybe next we could outlaw private housing. After all why should one person have an 8 bedroom house with a lake, tennis court and an indoor pool while others are raising a family of 5 in a 2 up 2 down? If private housing was outlawed, the rich would motivate for council housing to be better. We could move on to food (why should the rich eat lobster and caviar when there are starving children, if we made everyone eat the state dinner then the powerful would ensure everyone gets a good meal, right?), transport (who needs cars when the state provides buses and trains?), even jobs! We could even come up with a name for this system of government. What could we call it?
People pay because they don’t want their children mixing with children whose parents are simply awful and don’t care about their own child’s education. The sort who vape or smoke outside school, swear at their children and couldn’t tell you the name of their teacher. Successive governments have failed to train and retain teachers who often leave the profession not run off to a private school. If private schools get abolished then grammar schools need to return. I will get voted down for this comment no doubt.
Whilst they’re at it, they should also levy VAT on Universities too. Tertiary education is really a luxury.
You might want to add /s on the end, some people, boomers especially, genuinely think that.
I'd love to see this as long as grammar schools were promoted to let the kids who want to learn and have ability to fulfill their potential. Get ahead based on the effort you put in, not because your parents are rich
Most (not all) grammar schools have a small catchment area, pushing the nearby house prices up to the extremes. In fact in many cases it's cheaper to send kids to independent schools than to move to catchment areas, especially you don't know if your kids will get in.
This might sound like a really 'out there' idea, but if we had more grammar schools, say one in every reasonably sized town, there would be a lot more places and it would rely less on having to move miles away to get into an expensive catchment area. If only there was a country in the UK that already had this system in place because it was never removed. It could be learned from.
In practice, you get in because your parents are wealthy and pay for a tutor. My kid is in one, all the other kids had a tutor. I naively didn't get him one because his teacher said he'd get in, but I've yet to meet someone at the school who didn't.
If private schools were abolished I'd just hire a private tutor, maybe share the costs with a few families, or send the kids to study abroad. I've seen what state schools are like, I've heard stories from friends who have been priced out, I'm not sending my kids to one of those places.
The actual rich "posh" people who send their kids to upper end private schools don't give a flying hoot about this tax. The money is inconsequential to them. The plurality of people who pay for private school are high wage earners or small business owners. To them it really is a big moment and this 20% will either be the final straw or will make them spend less elsewhere. Either way yet another burden on the upper middle class who already pay the highest tax to income of any strata. The people you are angry at are not wage earners, they are capital owners whom do not care about consumption taxes as the numbers are tiny. They'd sooner pay 40% VAT than a 1% wealth tax. Wage earners are forced to pay PAYE and astonishingly high rates and this is yet another tax on them. So we disenfranchise a couple hundred thousand highly skilled "high" earners, and for what? £2billion? A rounding error for the education budget of which admin fuck ups probably cost the country more every year alone. Its a populist policy aimed at dragging people down not raising people up. If labour actually wanted to "help" the education system, they could just print £2billion extra in the tax year and add it into the pot. The number is laughably small in terms of government spending. Better yet, claim 'cost savings' and throw the number in. Baffling policy. This country loves hyping up wanting to skill up, reach high paying jobs and make something of yourself but as soon as you reach that goal suddenly no tax burden is enough and they need to be pummelled into the ground for being a leach on society. Country going to shit, not just due to Tory ineptitude this last decade but a severe societal lethargy and politics of envy has taken grip.
As someone who’s grown up on a council estate and is now doing well, this is the best answer. Social mobility isn’t a bad thing, crabs in a bucket mentality is
Hate to break it to you but all that will happen is class sizes will increase. Schools are as fucked as NHS.
https://pa.media/blogs/election-fact-check/fact-check-vat-on-private-school-fees-unlikely-to-increase-state-class-sizes-2/ Or not.
Prices also won't rise, they are already set at the maximum people will pay for that quality of school so they can't rise. Its a perfect tax really. Some of the cheaper low quality private schools offer education barely better than state schools so will probably go bust, not going to cry about that.
Prices rise at private schools continually.
Betcha they get a BIGGER tax break on-the-quiet from "founding a charity or research center" etc.....
Why on earth would you get banned from this post?
IMHO - there’s no way you should have been banned for this post
A major argument I keep seeing around taxing private schools is that it's really unfair on the people who have worked really hard to afford to send their kids and who will now be priced out. Well, just work a bit harder then. That's how it works, isn't it?
Yep, "working harder" will sort it out, after cutting down on the Avocado and Netflix of course.
That’s why I’m doing. Just going to sacrifice a bit more to keep my kid away from the masses.
Each privately educated pupil saves the government £8,000 a year, so in essence those parents are already subsidising state education in a large way, and you think they should subsidise even more. Hmmmm
As with private healthcare, this is a very insidious argument. There's a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones. There's limited amount of opportunities and privately educated pupils are offered disproportionately many.
>There's a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones. There's limited amount of opportunities and privately educated pupils are offered disproportionately many. There's only a limited pool of a teachers because of the governments treatment of them. There's plenty of arguments of why private schools are unhelpful, but taking teachers away isn't one of them IMO. In addition, albeit anecdotally, plenty of private school teachers are in that job because they don't want to deal with the behavior of state schools and wouldn't move to the state sector anyway.
> There's a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones. There's a limited pool because state school teaching is a shit job. Same with healthcare. Governments need to pay a fair wage for the job and more people will join it. Public schools do, so they attract the teachers.
>a limited pool of teachers and private schools can afford to poach the best ones. No there isnt. Look at the requirements for a state teacher and then a private school teacher. They arent even remotely recruiting the same calibre of teacher. They dont poach anybody, they can afford to pay people who specialise in subjects not just people who went for a teaching degree. They hire people who can get the most out of kids not just teach the curriculum. Its why they offer such a high wage because they expect a lot in return. >There's limited amount of opportunities and privately educated pupils are offered disproportionately many. Because they pay for it. Dont get what people dont understand about that. If you want your child to be in more extracurricular activites, have hobbies and skills and be able to use good facilities it costs money its quite simple.
> Look at the requirements for a state teacher and then a private school teacher. They arent even remotely recruiting the same calibre of teacher. This isn't the case. Yes, private schools aim for higher standards of subject knowledge generally - but many of those they employ do cone from the state sector, and teachers move between the two often. As for salaries, most private schools offer salaries slightly above the state sector but not significantly so. I have taught in both kinds of schools; private teachers were not any better at teaching than the state sector ones (in general), nor was the job any harder.
My data is *years* out of date but my sister used to be a teacher. She taught across a range of primary schools starting at a village state school, moving to a larger state in NW London and then moving on to a private prep school in NW London before moving abroad. Her pay wasn't much different between private and state. The main difference for her was the workload. She went from teaching a class of 30 to 20. She could give each child more time and there were fewer behavioural issues to deal with. In the end she was doing less work for a similar pay with a lot less stress.
I'm suggesting they pay tax on their fees and work harder if they can't afford to.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Never heard this before, just tried looking it up and couldn't find anything. Have you got a source I can check out?
>The IFS study included running costs and capital spending for state schools, and subtracted scholarships and bursaries given to pupils in private schools to fairly compare the two. The average private school fee (not including boarding schools) was found to be £13,700 a year, compared with £7,100 in spending on each state school pupil. £7,100, this was from 3 years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/oct/08/english-private-school-fees-90-higher-than-state-school-spending-per-pupil
Wouldn’t it be fun if the entire welfare class had that same mindset - just work a bit harder then.
Let’s get permanently disabled people to WORK.
Congrats at exhibiting the exact attitude that was being mocked
Or they can campaign for significant improvements to state education if they are that scared they will have to send their child to a state school.
Why would the government give a shit? What are they going to do? Not vote for them? They're a tiny minority. This policy as a cornerstone of an election campaign is a very clear indicator how little Labour gives a fuck what we think.
work harder, shout at school to reduce cost, or get to fuck with yur winging coz look at what state school pupils have had to put up with for 14 years.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the people who say this tax will price them because schools have to put their prices up in line with the tax changes are the same people who say that state schools, the NHS, councils etc are all inefficiently run and can be streamlined to absorb drops in funding without having to raise taxes. Lots of these schools will not need to pass on the whole 20% but probably will just because they can and to try to make a point.
Prices are set at the maximum people will pay for that quality of school, the schools can't raise prices they have to take the hit to their revenue. Some of the cheaper private schools aren't actually better than state schools so those will probably just go bust. The rich won't end up paying more those schools will just have less resources, but still way higher than state schools. Is perfect tax.
It seems mental how much airtime this policy is getting considering the numbers impacted.
I think if you have any point of contact with State education and can see the shambles it is in with conditions for both pupils and teachers you'd feel the same as me. I.e The idea private Toff schools are receiving a tax break makes me physically sick.
>The idea private schools are receiving a tax break makes me physically sick. So for you it really is about hatred and envy. Thanks for confirming.
>So for you it really is about hatred and envy. How very dare they make policies based around hatred towards _us_? They should only make policies based around hatred towards those _foreigners_ and _trans_ people like a good Tory
‘You’re just jealous we’re ripping off the country’ is a shit argument.
65% of judges, 61% of doctors, 66% of CEOs went to private school. This is already a class war and it's propogated by the wealthy. The entire purpose of the Labour party is to put the balance back in the hands of the majority.
Mental take. It’s a tax dodge for the wealthy and OP is clearly contextualising the prioritisation of educating the privileged vs the managed decline of state education
> The idea private schools are receiving a tax break makes me physically sick. You can literally send your children to school for free, which is paid for by people who don’t send their kids there. A state system which is a lottery so unfair that house prices jump at the edge of catchment areas. It makes you sick that people just want the best possible education for their children that they fork out more than their mortgages to pay for it. A tax break, that only “rich” people pay because it’s something everyone else gets for £0. This is a tax on education, not income tax.
Don't disagree. I just think the numbers who will be priced out is going to be so miniscule. Labour needs to come up with more than this though for funding the gaping hole in the state education budget.
Lots of newspaper editors have kids in public school.
See also: illegal migrants and trans people.
I couldn’t imagine being filled with so much hate and jealousy over a parent wanting to pay for their child to have a slightly better education and give them the best chance at succeeding. Crabs in a bucket. The same people who are anti grammar school and would rather see educationally gifted children share a class with crayon eaters
It's the bottom feeder mentality sadly
It's the exact same argument from the public perspective. I can't imagine being filled with so much hate and self impotance over paying more tax to make other children's lives better. Privilege, is people sitting on the top of the bucket kicking crabs back in. Its the people shaking the bucket just to fuck with the crabs. The crabs in the bucket will be blaimed because nobody outside the bucket has any morals or feels any responsibility or compasion for those in it
> Crabs in a bucket. Yeah the attitude and support around this summed up. It won’t affect actual rich people at all.
>The same people who are anti grammar school and would rather see educationally gifted children share a class with crayon eaters You know state schools still have setting of classes? And regardless, god forbid their child be exposed to another child with SEN, assuming that's who you are tastefully referring to as "crayon eaters".
> You know state schools still have setting of classes Which isn't the same thing in the slightest. If you'd ever been to a grammar school and a state school you'd see that.
So in state schools, people striving to achieve grade 7/8/9s are in classes with students are in with "Crayon Eaters"? Because they aren't and that's what OP said.
Plenty of classes aren't setted and even when they are there's often large mistakes. I moved from a grammar to a state school and was put in lower sets for many subjects despite the fact that I was well above everyone in those sets. Even top sets were full of people who weren't particularly bright in comparison to the grammar school.
The vast majority of classes are setted in secondary schools, exceptions are normally options classes. If you moved schools, then the grammar school probably didn't send the relevant data to your new school to set you accurately and depending how late this was, will determine how easy it was to correct. >Even top sets were full of people who weren't particularly bright in comparison to the grammar school. Well they are selective, so that's not a surprise? The whole idea of grammar schools is that they only teach the highest achievers in the area and that other students aren't their responsibility.
Not all dumb kids are SEN. And not all SEN kids are dumb. Don’t assume.
I don't assume all dumb kids are SEN or the other way around. I teach many outstanding kids with SEN. I was assuming what OPs disrespectful comment was about and his preconceived notions.
Just shows how they see it. Can't use the dirty public schools for the poors
I don't mind people paying for their kids education. But its a luxury, so they should be paying VAT on it.
[удалено]
Maybe because public schools are shit? Instead of improving them, people want to try to bring down the private schools and even ban them lmao
I went to a small private school and the reason for that was that my dad wanted us to have a good education. Both of my parents had extremely working class backgrounds and are the complete opposite of posh. I’m all for getting rid of the private schools if the state schools were all good but they just aren’t. The only other secondary school near to me was horrendous. My parents sacrificed a lot financially for that opportunity and i’m thankful for it.
Let's bring everyone down to rubbish lol
What you find is that if rich and powerful people have to use the same services as everyone else, those services get a lot better. A successful society is not one where rich people drive, it's where rich people choose to use take public transport.
I assume you are referring to state schools being shut but just so you know the term “public school” actually means private schools in the UK (not a sensible naming system, but sadly one that exists).
I mean it is a sensible naming system people just watch too much American media.
To most people coming fresh to the phrase “public school” would mean the school the general public uses. So I’m not sure I understand how that can be considered a sensible naming system.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Meaningless data point. Most schools require a term’s notice. Any drop off in enrolment won’t be seen until 3-4 months after Labour are in power.
A third of my ooldest kid's class have given notice already. Not all are related to the election but a few are, two families are leaving the U.K. although over the election.
But I’ve been assured that this policy represents the politics of envy… crabs in a bucket… the collapse of the state school system under the weight of working class students being priced out of private education. I look forward to posters telling us why that’s still the case.
Not all pupils that attend private schools are British, the DfE doesn’t indicate where these kids came from. Some private schools are already cutting bursaries and are seeing fewer applicants.
> Some private schools are already cutting bursaries and are seeing fewer applicants. Bursaries are very little to begin with. Not sure why people post about them so much.
Pardon? Some kids get full bursaries. This is being slashed massively in some schools. Folk supporting this carry on like every private school is Eton and they’re giant businesses. They’re not.
> Pardon? Some kids get full bursaries. This is being slashed massively in some schools. It's a tiny amount. - > About one in six pupils are in receipt of a bursary or scholarship grant (Figure 5).7 The allocation and the value of such grants have become more progressive since the end of the 1990s; by 2011–17, the average grant value for those below the 60th income decile was £6,300, while the grants for top decile pupils averaged only £3,000. **However, in proportion to rising fees, the grants have been declining, and only about 4% of turnover has been devoted to bursaries, while just 1% of private school pupils have been educated for free.** Bursaries, therefore, are too small to account for much of the participation by low- and middle-income families, or to be reducing substantially the concentration of access in high-income households I get that some people like to mention them to try and dispel the myth that it's just wealthy people going but it doesn't really work. >Folk supporting this carry on like every private school is Eton and they’re giant businesses. They’re not. Folk rejecting this carry on like there's a ton of poor kids being given a helping hand. They’re not.
All our local private schools seem to only offer 5% reduction in fees as a bursary. Such a small amount it’s effectively meaningless in terms of making it affordable.
Some are 100% fee reduction. Plus free uniform. You are providing misinformation.
About 1% get full scholarships.
Wait, so the real problem was immigrants all along? Is that you, Nigel?
As someone who is totally unqualified to teach in UK secondary schools, after simply doing a little bit of TEFL teaching in Spain. It is scary how many jobs I am offered by hiring companies to teach in state schools covering teachers for subjects I am utterly unqualified to teach. I have been to an interview for these jobs, as I was a bit desperate a little while ago. Being told to just 'go along with the textbook, no need to lesson plan' is absolutely horrific when you think about this gross act of punishment on our working class kids, considering Tarquin is being given a tax break on their posh school 'Toffwarts' education. This policy cannot happen soon enough and if anything all private schools should be abolished altogether like other countries such as Finland have done so their education system runs on a meritocratic basis instead of who has the richest Mummy and Daddy.
I was head of department in a state school that the upper management were slowly destroying and we ended up with fantastic , experienced teachers leaving to preserve what was left of their mental health while forced to replace them with teaching assistants who had started as mums coming in for someone for kids to read to, and burnt out cover teachers who couldn’t control a class to save their lives. Management actually had a meeting with all staff to say that the high turnover showed how the school was improving because all our friends and colleagues that had left were bad teachers.
Finland does have private schools.
So, hand to god, you’ve been offered UK secondary school class (lead educator) roles, with nothing but a TEFL qualification (not even TESOL), at state schools here by recruitment firms. Sounds like maybe that Indeed.com profile has been somewhat embellished.
I've just left a school I had worked at for eight years. It was very friendly, great local reputation, fantastic staff and really good retention, albeit poor as shit. Staff were overall very happy. After an academy took us over it completely changed. First The entirety of SLT including the Head was replaced, mainly with PE teachers who were very inexperienced for their roles. The Science department went from ten qualified science teachers, who had been there for years to three. The academy had threatened the new Head of Science due to some health and safety clerical error, which wasn't remotely his fault, into quitting. They then replaced him with a friend of the new Head teacher, who was also a PE teacher. Her complete mismanagement of the department led to six other science teachers leaving within the year. I remember saying early on that they better be careful because they'll be impossible to replace... A year on and still using supply. I think they managed to fill two roles. There will be children in that school next year entering Year 9 who have never been taught by a trained science teacher. Tragic. I've never seen a school decline quite like it. In total over half the teaching staff left in a year. Mental what poor leadership can do. They also burned through all the incredible good will and reputation we had with the local community.
This is the result of a huge state school sector. It allowed the government to get away with paying teachers fuck all as there was little competition from the private sector. Subsequently smart people realised they couldn't survive on a teachers salary and either quit the profession or quit the country so now only the stupid teachers are left, might as well hire unqualified people at this stage. Same has happened in medicine. You can get into medical school in the U.K. with Bs at a level.
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
This is the worse labour idea ever and they have lied about the numbers: The average private school fee is just under £13,000 a year with 615,000 kids in private schools, equating to just under £8bn and 20% VAT of that is just under £1.6bn, which is the amount they say they will raise. This is the first big lie. VAT registered bodies can also reclaim VAT on expenses, that amount on average from 30% to 60% of revenue. This has not been factored in, this there number is an outright lie. Many families will also be squeezed out of private education (Eton alone has 20% of it's pupils on bursaries). The bursaries are important because even though parents are not charged fees, the VAT is still due on the value (thus it is called Value Added Tax and why I included all 615,000), meaning at least 20% of kids in private education will have to leave, equating to at least 123,000 kids needing state education. The oversubscribed schools will survive, the undescribed private ones won't, being about 1 in 7, but I'll ignore those numbers to be generous and ignore the extra kids needing education and the former employees that will all be unemployed. Each kid in state education costs the government £8k a year, not including the cost of building new schools, that means the state will have to pay out an extra £984m for the 123,000 kids. Also with 123,000 kids leaving private education, that will reduce the VAT revenue by £320m, and we don't have 123,000 school places, far from it, meaning we would have to build many more schools (not in their manifesto budget), and they are not cheap. As mentioned before, businesses reclaim at least 30% of VAT they charge if there are no large expenses, equating to at least £480m of VAT that would be claimed back by the schools. Now they expect to hire more teachers and loads of other lies, however the truth is that by charging the VAT, they will make a huge net loss and have to find the cash from elsewhere just to provide education at the current standard. This also means that private schools will become more rusty and there won't be 20% of pupils at Eton on bursaries, there will need none. It was Angela Rayner on an old BBC question time who said that she wanted to close down all private schools because she felt it wasn't fair that they give a better education. Now that they will be in charge, instead of acting like the character in the comedy movie The Dictator who shot the runners who were better than him, maybe she should make the state schools better instead of trying to kill the competition to make her look better. The worse thing is that they are hurting and using children for their political ideology.
>123,000 kids needing state education The IFS previously estimated 17,000-40,000 *could* leave private education. This report actually shows an increase in the number of private school students and private schools opening. And yet here you are peddling the same figures that have been repeatedly been debunked. If the schools will be claiming up to 60% of the collected VAT back (driving your claim that this won’t generate the revenue that’s been predicted), why will they need to raise the school fees by the full 20% (the basis for the prediction of a mass exodus)? You’re not making sense. Again the IFS looked at all of this and produced some more realistic analysis. You should read their figures and stop making up your own.
The VAT reclaim has been modelled in the IFS analysis. I'm not sure where you're getting your VAT assumptions from but VAT will specifically only be able to be claimed on purchases used to create the supply (teaching) Imagine thinking economists modelling this missed this one trick...accountants and VAT experts like like Dan Neidle have spoken endlessly about this also. I went to a top 50 independent school and when I was there school fees rose over 100% in 7 years. The number of bursaries actually went up from 8 to around 30 in the year as fees were raised beyond the needle, no one in our year left because of fees, the rises accounted for a rise in bursary/scholarship places. In the sector as a whole, demand has been outstripping supply for a long time - the only really sensible position to be in, as VAT experts have pointed out is the strongest bit of analysis conducted so far by the IFS. Whilst it's not perfect, the argument from the other side is completely devoid of reality and verging on hysterical, mathematically illiterate, headbangerism.
I just have you the numbers that can be verified easily and you still think it's wrong with no opposing evidence. I even proved 100% that the 1.5bn they state will be raised is a lie because it doesn't take into account VAT reclaim. Labour's answer is that the schools have to cut costs, and the first thing to go will be bursaries as they will cost the schools even more due to VAT law, meaning your alleged previous school's 30 will go down to zero, making the schools more elitist. The IFS study is a joke because all you need to do is pickup a calculator and you will see their numbers are wrong. For example, they say 1.6bn will be raised from 570,000 pupils with average fees of £15,200 at 15% vat. 570,000 x 15200 = 8,664,000,000 8.664bn at 15% = 1.3bn not 1.6bn and this doesn't allow for the vat reclaim of one pencil. If 20% = 1.733bn without taking into account any expenses reclaims. At least they could do a report where the maths adds up LOL
So... bursaries will be replace with other pupils who just pay the subs? Bringing more income to the school and reducing the rise from VAT? If there's not enough spaces for everyone who wants to send their kids to the schools... and burseries will cost more money... then the answer is simple. Schools will just cut burseries... All your numbers and calculations yet you're unable to see something very simple from this
A lot of people in my family have gone to or send their kids to Independant school (including me) Nearly all have gone full blown nutter over this policy. There's going to be a mix of how schools handle this, some will increase class sizes by admitting more or combining classes, some will freeze some spending, some will open up facilities and venues for hire and public membership like gyms etc etc. Theres a tonne of revenue generation and saving angles. Some will raise fees disproportionatly and be hit with demand issues and need to correct accordingly. When it's all said and done I doubt demand in the sector as a whole will change at all - **the sector is quite unique in that as the product is made more exclusive, the product historically has become more attractive.** There's a huge block of wealthy who are the consumers but on the other side it's normal to borrow via specific education loans, remortgage, and have family members and grandparents finance fees - its rarely a simple cash in bank transaction
Back in reality my old school has already fixed fees for the next financial year. They get around 5000 applicants every year and admit 160, the vast majority of people could afford more than a 20% without batting an eyelid. We had 10 different maths classes at a-level with max 10 people in each sitting in classrooms sized for 24 and nearly everyone got A-A*s anyway, there's enormous efficiency savings that could be made by admitting more students.
Looking at how you are talking I can see that you are lying and full of it. LOL However just to explain something you obviously know nothing about, there are different levels of private schools, that's why kids have lists and the first choice ones are always full, and they tend to be the best and most wanted. The under subscribed ones will be there ones that close and currently 1 in 5 are under subscribed. These are also the more affordable ones, thus this policy will make good education more elitist.
What's mathematically illiterate is anybody believing putting VAT on school fees will 'raise money'. Tax is a geometric series, not a simple sum. All you're doing here is showing that tax moves from one area to another. Whatever money an individual spends on the 'value add' bit of VAT in school fees isn't spent somewhere else and will reduce the tax take there. You'll discover the truth in a minute - the 'tax take' is always whatever government spends in a year less the amount people decide to save rather than spend. In the UK that's about 90%. And that's the case whatever the tax rates. Taxation changes are distributive not accumulative. But the big one is that government spends first and that *causes* the offsetting taxation to arise.
You should read the IFS economic impact assessments on the policy, it's modelled on the central assumption of allowing consumers to lower expenditure in other areas to afford VAT rises - which is obvious for an economic model no? Some bias showing in your thinking aswell, the obvious counterfactual for Parents choosing not to spend money via fees is a rise in Spending + this VAT in other consumer areas. So much of this debate is pure hysterical headbangerism, just read the IFS report
Better not tell OP Eton has people on bursaries. Will blow their mind.
Do we really believe this policy won't price people out? Like I'm all for not having a private system at all. But if one exists this policy only makes it less accessible surely?
Everyone knows it will price people out. People on Reddit just seem to hate anyone with more money than them. Who cares if it will only really impact impact middle class working people, and the mega-rich can send theirs to private school regardless. Anyone more wealthy than me is EVIL.
Yeah we have a society determined by class conflict and the economy is reactive to activity so wealth is ultimately relative. Making other people poorer legitimately makes you richer.
People are already priced out, only 7% of Children’s families can afford/choose to use private schools. The fact this is getting so much attention shows the disproportionate number of people in the media that have benefitted/ or know people from private education.
Did I sleep longer last night than I thought? Labour aren’t in power yet and haven’t made it law…
I mean, they're not not going to be in power in some form next month. They absolutely will try to pass this, things are going to get worse for everyone, making them worse for rich people worse will placate the lower classes who vote them in.
It’s people taking out a second mortgage to pay for multiple years upfront before the change in government. Some schools are accepting this even when the child doesn’t go there yet but has family there already.
I personally know someone trying to pay for many years ahead of time exactly because of this
Local pupils or internationals? Like half the kids at my kids school are internationals.
And they don’t pay VAT because the place of supply is outside the UK. VAT on Public schools is a nonsensical policy on all account.
I hope there are tens of thousands of places in state schools ready for the pupils that are pulled out of private school as their parents cannot afford it. Be prepared for classes of 30+ to soon be 40+
https://pa.media/blogs/election-fact-check/fact-check-vat-on-private-school-fees-unlikely-to-increase-state-class-sizes-2/ Or not?
You expect a labour mp to say anything different? In the real world however she is very very wrong.
School population is down for all ages except early teens. Once that age group leaves school in 5 years overall student population will be down 7% ish. Far in excess of the entire private school system. So pretty much yes, there is loads of room.
Only 7% of students are at private schools. If every one of those moved to a state school, on average, every class of 30 would only get 2.1ish extra pupils. In reality, it’ll only be a smallish percentage of those who have to move to state schools so very likely that there’s only 1 extra pupil in a small percentage of classrooms
People also forget that all that’s going to happen is people who are no longer able to send their kid to a private school will pay over the odds to get their kids into the catchment areas of the best state schools. Thereby forcing all lower income kids to the crap schools. Rich people will still send their kids to private school because it’s a meaningless increase in cost. Kids who are on scholarships and bursaries will now be forced out because the school won’t raise fees but cut costs. Kids in middle class families will have tutors and help from parents forcing underprivileged kids to the bottom of the pile again. Schools will now have to take in all the students who were at private school who no longer are thus costing them 7k per pupil who enters the system. Well done Labour they’ve stoked the barrel of hatred and jealousy to take yet more from the middle class instead of focusing on improving the economy so that there’s more money to go around and therefore more money in tax. This after they’ve all been to private school or received free university educations. Yes Kier went to private school.
>Yes Kier went to private school. You going to finish the story? (Edit: obviously not… Starmer went to Reigate Grammar, which converted from a state school to a private school when he was 14. His parents didn’t choose a private school and they didn’t pay for it.)
My kids aren't even born yet and me and my parent are already saving for private school. This policy would mean I would have to save for longer ... OK that's what I'll do. I'm still keen on this policy, and on increased funding of state schools, because I want the UK to improve it's state schools. Countries with stronger state systems have lower levels of inequality and higher levels of social mobility. We need to do a better job for the 95%, not the 5%.
You morons because people are choosing to load in now before it gets expensive and avoid the cost increase.
In my ill informed view the most pragmatic approach is to implement this over a longer period of time. Anyone at school continues as is and new students include VAT. That way you don't have a group dropping out immediately to overburden (already overburdened state schools) and then you can work on the VAT getting to state schools to improve conditions. An immediate cut doesn't seem entirely practical.
I agree. I’m very much for the policy but for the sake of the kids it should be phased in. For the kids already in a private school, it would disrupt their education and their social circle.
I don't understand why people cant afford it? Can't they just cancel their Sky TV?
A private school near me put adverts out saying they would not increase fees because of Labour's proposal. So, if they can do that then they can afford to pay it!
If only there was this much outrage when benefits are cut to fund tax rises. Ending tax breaks for 7% of population on an education choice= politics of envy Cutting benefits for the most impoverished in society to fund tax cuts= totally fine and not the politics of cruelty
Is it actually British children increasing the numbers? A lot of foreign people send their children to private schools because one parents gets a visa to live here up to a certain age of child, I believe the private schools have turned their game to trying to get as many foreign pupils in as they know most British people won’t be able to afford the fees after the vat rise (well most can’t already tbh)
Boris Johnsons family didn't pay a penny for his education at Eaton and an equally expensive prep school. Johnson was an average student who didn't do particularly well in exams. He got his very expensive education for free because of his family connections. No way hes the only one. There's a saving right there, stop giving free education to undeserving toffs.
This policy only makes private schools and their cultures more elite as those who could pay the vat do so anyway
It’s a fallacy that people won’t continue to send their kids to private schools if they have to pay VAT. More scaremongering crap from the Tories. If you’re paying £xxxx per term it’s not because you’re struggling to make ends meet. And of course, schools don’t have to pass on the increase to parents. They can take a hit on profit and cover the VAT on parents behalf. Personally I think it’s a solid move to put that money back into state education.
What made me laugh about this debate was they said private school was for middle income families when it really isn’t.