Labour plan to charge VAT on private school fees

[Nick]

Governments will need to raise more tax and charging VAT on private school fees seems one reasonable way to do this.

My parents chose to send me to a private school as a non-boarding pupil and they paid the fees. I'd say I had a reasonable education but all the younger generation of my extended family  went to state comprehensive schools and they appear to have received a better education than I did.

Regarding class size, a good teacher can control a class of 30, a bad one can't control a class of 15.

There could be numerous reasons why you didn't benefit more from private school, doesn't necessarily mean the system is bad, the schools you went to May have just not suited you. I went to a Grammar School and came away with bugger all, continued studies whilst at RAF Brize Norton. 

[HDQQ]

Governments will need to raise more tax and charging VAT on private school fees seems one reasonable way to do this.

My parents chose to send me to a private school as a non-boarding pupil and they paid the fees. I'd say I had a reasonable education but all the younger generation of my extended family  went to state comprehensive schools and they appear to have received a better education than I did.

Regarding class size, a good teacher can control a class of 30, a bad one can't control a class of 15.

[BeElBeeBub]

And your 'one size fits all' statement does not wash. Your beloved Labour have been moaning for years about class sizes, it's all just got better now has it?

There are (good) arguments for and against private education.

But there aren't enough places for all the private school kids in the state system is flat out wrong. 

Class sizes are too big and that's an artifact of the funding levels per pupil.

There was always a gap between state and private schools, but it has been widening over the last decade. 



As I said, the fall in pupil nun era offers a chance for tghe government to increase the spend per pupil without increasing the overall budget. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Thats a fair argument with regard the birth rate though I would argue there are 500 thousand unfilled places . All that says is that those who suggest this to be the case are basing it on larger class sizes . European averages (last time I looked) are about 20 in a class , the UK is nearer 27 . If  you dropped that to the European average schools would be over subscribed , if you said we will have class sizes of 30 across the board which I believe is the cap in most cases you can find 500 thousand spare places

Its all about what class size you are prepared to accept , my sons is 12-14 which is a little lower than most private schools which run at about 16 . Smaller class sizes is the number one reason people choose to go private yet  Labours plan would  increase class sizes in state  schools .

Class sizes are driven by government funding. 

Schools (or their academy) get paid a set amount per pupil "on roll" (and the definiton of "on roll" is a bit stupid but that's another matter)

There are per pupil top ups (for example a SEN pupil can come with extra funding) and various grants that can be applied for based on a bewildering set of criteria. 

The upshot is, you need a certain number of pupils to support a certain cost structure.

For most state schools that's in the mid 20's - just to break even. A really efficient school might get class sizes down a bit, but there is a limit to how low you can go. 

To put it in context, the government pays about £7.5k a pupil a year.  With some top ups etc you might be looking at "fees" of around 9-10k max. 

A cheap private school starts in the £15k ballpark. 

Private schools get more per pupil, so class sizes can be smaller. 

If the go "paid" more per pupil, class sizes would come down. 

[Nick]

But "there aren't enough placss" isn't an actual argument.

And your 'one size fits all' statement does not wash. Your beloved Labour have been moaning for years about class sizes, it's all just got better now has it?

[Streetwalker]

I'm not so sure about the "struggle to take extra numbers" person argument. At least at primary level.

The big issue facing primary education is low numbers. We've had low birth years and you have a situation where incoming years are below the finacial "break even" level for multiple schools in an area.

Nationally, there are over 500k unfilled primary places. In London the primary applications fell by over 2% last year.

The independent sector has a little over 600k pupils.

Obviously this is not an even distribution with local shortages still occurring.

Of course, I this represents a massive opportunity for the government. If it kept overall funding at current real term levels then it could increase per pupil funding.

Bet they won't take it.

Thats a fair argument with regard the birth rate though I would argue there are 500 thousand unfilled places . All that says is that those who suggest this to be the case are basing it on larger class sizes . European averages (last time I looked) are about 20 in a class , the UK is nearer 27 . If  you dropped that to the European average schools would be over subscribed , if you said we will have class sizes of 30 across the board which I believe is the cap in most cases you can find 500 thousand spare places 

Its all about what class size you are prepared to accept , my sons is 12-14 which is a little lower than most private schools which run at about 16 . Smaller class sizes is the number one reason people choose to go private yet  Labours plan would  increase class sizes in state  schools .

[BeElBeeBub]

It's very simple.

The left argument is that the poor cherubs can't fill the millions of job vacancies, especially fruit picking because they live nowhere near the vacant positions. You're now stating that there are enough school places to accommodate all the poor rich cherubs. If location is a difficulty for jobs, how come it's now so easy for school places?

Because the number of private pupils is small compared to the number of state places. 

The majority of "not enough school places" stories aren't about a shortage of places. There are enough places for all students. They are about a shortage of places in first choice schools, which is to do with the variation in quality of schools both real and perceived. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Where I live there are 2 main primary schools and an all girls school, 2 main high schools and 2 private schools. The state schools cannot take another 40%, and to suggest it is ridiculous.

Any data on how many Labour MP's didn't attend state schools? I'm betting a lot.

*Edit

15% of Labour MP's attended non-state schools.

Anecdotes aren't data, my figures were data. 

But as to your anecdote, I let me counter with my own.  
I have 3 primary schools in my village. 2 are private with a total of twice as many pupils as the local state primary. If they both closed the actual number of additional pupils for the local primary school would be about a dozen or so because most of the pupils aren't from the area. 

The local town has a very big prestigious private school. Looks like bloody Hogwarts. 

If that closed the total number of extra places needed in the 3 local state secondary schools would be maybe a hundred or so added to the roughly existing 2,800 places.

Now there are definitely arguments for private schools, for example the economic arguments as they do bring money to the local economy.

But "there aren't enough placss" isn't an actual argument. 

[Nick]

What the F@@@ are you talking about.? Fruit pickers?

I was addressing the argument "if private schools closed there wouldn't be enough places in state schools"

1) the number of private school pupils is small vs the number of state school pupils (private schools make up about 600k of the 9m pupils, a bit over 5%)

2) schools (state and private) are already facing a shortage of pupils, the projected fall over the next decade is about 12% or 1m pupils.

You could close every private school over the next decade and there would be spare places in the stars system. It might even stop some schools from having to close and thus improve local choice and places.

It's very simple.

The left argument is that the poor cherubs can't fill the millions of job vacancies, especially fruit picking because they live nowhere near the vacant positions. You're now stating that there are enough school places to accommodate all the poor rich cherubs. If location is a difficulty for jobs, how come it's now so easy for school places?

[BeElBeeBub]

There are thousands of fruit picking jobs available also, amazing how the opposite argument is now being used to easily fill these school places. It's been "the unemployed aren't in the right locations to pick fruit" mantra coming out, now that it serves the argument everything changes.

What the F@@@ are you talking about.? Fruit pickers? 

I was addressing the argument "if private schools closed there wouldn't be enough places in state schools" 

1) the number of private school pupils is small vs the number of state school pupils (private schools make up about 600k of the 9m pupils, a bit over 5%)

2) schools (state and private) are already facing a shortage of pupils, the projected fall over the next decade is about 12% or 1m pupils.

You could close every private school over the next decade and there would be spare places in the stars system. It might even stop some schools from having to close and thus improve local choice and places. 

[Nick]

I'm not so sure about the "struggle to take extra numbers" person argument. At least at primary level.

The big issue facing primary education is low numbers. We've had low birth years and you have a situation where incoming years are below the finacial "break even" level for multiple schools in an area.

Nationally, there are over 500k unfilled primary places. In London the primary applications fell by over 2% last year.

The independent sector has a little over 600k pupils.

Obviously this is not an even distribution with local shortages still occurring.

Of course, I this represents a massive opportunity for the government. If it kept overall funding at current real term levels then it could increase per pupil funding.

Bet they won't take it.

Where I live there are 2 main primary schools and an all girls school, 2 main high schools and 2 private schools. The state schools cannot take another 40%, and to suggest it is ridiculous.

Any data on how many Labour MP's didn't attend state schools? I'm betting a lot.

*Edit

15% of Labour MP's attended non-state schools. 

[Nick]

I'm not so sure about the "struggle to take extra numbers" person argument. At least at primary level.

The big issue facing primary education is low numbers. We've had low birth years and you have a situation where incoming years are below the finacial "break even" level for multiple schools in an area.

Nationally, there are over 500k unfilled primary places. In London the primary applications fell by over 2% last year.

The independent sector has a little over 600k pupils.

Obviously this is not an even distribution with local shortages still occurring.

Of course, I this represents a massive opportunity for the government. If it kept overall funding at current real term levels then it could increase per pupil funding.

Bet they won't take it.

There are thousands of fruit picking jobs available also, amazing how the opposite argument is now being used to easily fill these school places. It's been "the unemployed aren't in the right locations to pick fruit" mantra coming out, now that it serves the argument everything changes. 

[Nick]

I've got a dog in this fight, I with two school age little ones.

My sister and I also went to local independent schools.

My observation.

Private education has got a lot more expensive.

Back when I went, the families weren't rich. Sure there were a few kids picked up in Porrsches (and one kid memorably picked up by a driver in a Bentley) but most had dad's in middling jobs (scientist , lorry driver and teacher were some of my friends) person and not all had working mums.

Right now you are looking at £20k per year per kid as a starting point. Two kids and you're up to £40k out of taxed income, so £75k or so income just to pay for the kids, I let alone eat, drink pay mortgage, I bills etc.

Nobody is affording that on a single salary of a teacher, lorry driver or scientist. Not even with the climate change hoax payments from Greta Thunberg. 😜

So yeah, back then it was possible for a family of normal means to send their kids private. Some scrimping and saving could yield enough money to do it.

Not now, not even remotely.

All you've done is prove the point wrong by doubling the number of CHILDREN (they don't allow Goats into schools) being sent. A struggling family can scrimp to send a single child, so yes, the point still stands. 

[Nick]

It already is beyond most people to pay.

That's why he said those, and that's why it's called private.

[BeElBeeBub]

I think borky's right , Labour will backtrack . Having had a chat with son no1 about this who works in a private infant  age school it was suggested that the state shools would struggle to accomodate the extra numbers . Not only of those who could not afford the extra costs but the knock on of even greater costs for those who would have to pay more because there was less of them .
Even then there would be less money in the private schools which would impact on standard of teachers and class sizes . They would in effect become the same as better end comprehensives which won't temp anyone looking to spend £5K a term on little ones education

I'm not so sure about the "struggle to take extra numbers" person argument. At least at primary level. 

The big issue facing primary education is low numbers. We've had low birth years and you have a situation where incoming years are below the finacial "break even" level for multiple schools in an area.

Nationally, there are over 500k unfilled primary places. In London the primary applications fell by over 2% last year. 

The independent sector has a little over 600k pupils. 

Obviously this is not an even distribution with local shortages still occurring. 

Of course, I this represents a massive opportunity for the government. If it kept overall funding at current real term levels then it could increase per pupil funding. 

Bet they won't take it.