[Closed] Private School Business Rates Relief - The Scots are getting rid...

People sending their kids to private school are doing the state an economic favour, paying taxes for school places they are not using.

Apart, of course, from the 20% from overseas, who aren't.

Like universities, there is nothing stopping our state schools from charging for those who are not resident... 😉

All the pro vs anti argument aside...

Basically they should pay their taxes, like other schools do. End of argument for me.

You need to ask why people send their kids to private schools (at a cost to themselves)

Better education - No
Better chances in life through relationships built - yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to - yes
Segregation from the poorer in society - yes

Only the first point has anything to do with education...

Like universities, there is nothing stopping our state schools from charging for those who are not resident...

I suspect that the barrier to that particular market working well isn't on the supply side..

Chakaping - go on 2nd time of asking now. What social injustice is there of me sending my child to private school ?

People send their kids to private school in the hope of securing a prosperous future for them, partly via access to better educational resources, partly via networking and partly by instilling an unjustified sense of entitlement.

When the kids attain that prosperity after going on to Oxbridge and getting an internship with Morgan Stanley ('cos their classmate Henry's dad is on the board), it's at the expense of less privileged kids who didn't have the same opportunities.

So now you understand. But do you care?

If they don't (for whatever political reasons) want private schools to get the benefits of being a charity why don't they just change the rules on who can be a charity?

I know..... bonkers, eh?

Well fairly. How would sending my son to the local under performing school make it any better ?

Well fairly. How would sending my son to the local under performing school make it any better ?

You don't think that motivated parents avoiding local state schools is partly responsible for their poorer performance? I know that comprehensive schools get a bad rep, but on the other hand, they're not actually comprehensive...

From the link I posted earlier:

If fee-paying schools were abolished, just think of the efforts that would be made by the parents of children transferring to the state sector to ensure that all schools were up to the mark. State schools across the country would benefit enormously from the skills, the cultural capital (and the money) of such families.
Such a move would be the most effective way of narrowing the gap between rich and poor, a move that the Finnish government had the foresight to effect back in the 1970s. Look where they are now – far ahead of Britain in the OECD’s Pisa rankings which measure educational progress around the world.
Fiona Carnie
European Forum for Freedom in Education

How would sending my son to the local under performing school make it any better ?

Do you really have to have that spelt out to you?

If the rich and privileged just opt out of the system by default, by paying for a private education, then they have absolutely no concern whether the local school is underperforming or not. And whether we like it or not, in our present society the rich and privileged are the only people who's opinions ae considered valid

So if they had to use the same system as us urchins, which direction do you feel standards would head in overall?

Go on... gin out on a limb

Maybe ask your kids to evaluate it as a sort of exercise. See if that education you're paying for is worth the money? 😉

it's at the expense of less privileged kids

Sorry you are making sweeping statements there.

I am not from a rich or privileged background, neither is my wife. We have worked very hard to ge to a situation where we earn enough to now give our child what we think are his best opportunities for success. Nothing was handed on a plate. What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

If the the school fees go up we would try our best to continue paying, if it’s too much he goes to state school. Which would end up costing the state more money.

However I do like the idea of getting a tax rebate fir not currently using state schools.

What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

Because it perpetuates gross inequality of opportunity in society, in a rigged system.

Nothing was handed on a plate.

You just bought your offspring the plate. Thats fine, if you're fine with that. But don't get all moralistic about it

What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

That very much depends on how you wish to define "best".

State schools across the country would benefit enormously from the skills, the cultural capital (and the money) of such families.

I thought well off people were evil and the tax system should be used to force them to leave the UK and go abroad?

Are we now saying they're actually quite good and should be encouraged to stay and get involved?

Might be a bit too late, a vast number of people have voted leave in the hope of chasing those nasty bankers away to Frankfurt and Switzerland.

If people only sent their kids to these schools to avoid the poor and for networking opportunities, I wonder why academically selective state grammar schools are also so damn popular? There are *gasp* poor people there and yet there are also plenty of affluent parents, who could afford private options, who send their offspring there too.

And if you compare their academic results and the number of kids they send to top universities, the best state grammars outperform a lot of very expensive private schools.

There are many reasons why selective schools serve their pupils very well. There not being poor people there really isn't one of them.

[quote=jambalaya ]I don’t we are suggesting the entire peivate sector school population would move but even 5 or 10% would put on substantial extra pressure and remember if you can afford private school fees you can afford to move right into the heart of the best state schools catchment areas.
People sending their kids to private school are doing the state an economic favour, paying taxes for school places they are not using.

Self contradictory as usual - if they can afford to move right into the heart of the any catchment area they want then a relatively small increase in the fees isn't going to put them off sending their kids to private school (the only ones who might be are those struggling to pay the mortgage they already have - the rest will just be buying smaller luxury yachts).

It's nice to know how altruistic the people buying private education are - I'm assuming such people also wouldn't consider dodging tax by varying their official country of residence?

Because it perpetuates gross inequality of opportunity in society, in a rigged system.

Fair comment. However unfortunately utopia will never exist.

Ever noticed how well-off people have always "worked very hard" to get where they have?

They often don't even notice the opportunities they've been given to do that hard work.

What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

I just explained.

However I do like the idea of getting a tax rebate fir not currently using state schools.

Yeah.... welll...... er......

I've not been into hospital this year so I'm due LOADS of tax back. Come to think of it, I've not had a house fire or been the victim of crime either. Not needed anything from the social care system, now I come to think of it. WHERE'S MY MONEY???!!!????

There are many reasons why selective schools serve their pupils very well.

Yes, they are of benefit to the minority who are able to go there.

Self contradictory as usual - if they can afford to move right into the heart of the any catchment area they want then a relatively small increase in the fees isn't going to put them off sending their kids to private school (the only ones who might be are those struggling to pay the mortgage they already have - the rest will just be buying smaller luxury yachts).

No, because private schools are often on the edge. A local private school closed when it lost *3* pupils from the same family. The remaining students had to find new schools and typically got soaked up by two other local private schools and the state sector, I've no idea in what ratio.

So a small increase will close schools and those kids will be going somewhere. A handful leaving will have a big impact.

...but from an English perspective it's not day pupils who matter. It's the boarders. A small number of borders moving schools to near (say) Gatwick could make a big difference to the private sector down in England which (from my limited experience) is really struggling.

There are many reasons why selective schools serve their pupils very well.

Yes, they are of benefit to the minority who are able to go there.

And yet when Mrs May wanted to expand the state grammar school offering....

However unfortunately utopia will never exist.

What sort of actions do you think are stopping it ?

Can you think of an example based on this thread and your attitude ?

And yet when Mrs May wanted to expand the state grammar school offering....

"What about the education for the majority of kids who won't go to Grammars". Said no Tory, ever.

Chakaping - sorry to me your reasoning suggests that you shouldn’t aspire to do better in life.

And yet when Mrs May wanted to expand the state grammar school offering....

...people rightly said that they didn't really want a return to the 11plus and the Secondary Modern.

FunkyDunc - Member
...What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?...

Absolutely nothing. That's very worthy and good parenting.

So long as you're not expecting me and the other taxpayers to afford it for you when we already have provided an education system.

In these days of foodbanks and people starving to death, or committing suicide because of DWP decisions, scarce state monetary resources should go only to the needy.

Better education - No
Better chances in life through relationships built - yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to - yes
Segregation from the poorer in society - yes

Only the first point has anything to do with education...

And you have got it wrong. You would have to have a private education system with the very worst teachers and leaders in the land to end up with no better education than the state schools seeing as how facilities and budgets are much much higher and the classes are half the size.

Epicyclo - I agree in principle around being a level playing field about tax rebates on rates etc. There is also talk of charging 20% VAT on School fees.

All I am saying is that at a time when state schools are struggling financially and physically being able to have bums on seats it is stupid and not cost effective to change the private school charging system

It’s counter productive financially for the country, but helps win votes !

It’s counter productive financially for the country,

Could you show me your working out or did you just decide it fitted your narrative better to say that?

And you have got it wrong. You would have to have a private education system with the very worst teachers and leaders in the land to end up with no better education than the state schools seeing as how facilities and budgets are much much higher and the classes are half the size.

OK, there's another important factor in selective schooling that improves the education for those that can benefit from it, all other things (quality of facilities, teaching, class sizes) being equal and that is simply not having to teach to such a broad ability range and deal with as much disruptive behaviour.

The fact is that, for any given size of classroom full of kids, if you don't have the bottom x% of academic ability present, and you also don't have the worst y% of disruptively behaving kids in the room, the kids that remain, whose academic ability is >x and behaviour better than y, will get better educated.

Selective schools do this.

As for how you meet the educational needs of x and y, well that was the problem with the grammar / secondary modern split and the fair comment that the Conservatives are probably (?) less concerned with their opportunities. In theory, they would equally best be served with schooling that is targeted to their needs, but of course that isn't what happens.

There is also talk of charging 20% VAT on School fees.

I wasn't aware of that.

Don't forget that this isn't a one way street - if the schools are making taxable supplies then they will also be able to reclaim all their input VAT, which isn't insignificant if they're building a huge extension..

OK, there's another important factor in selective schooling that improves the education for those that can benefit from it, all other things (quality of facilities, teaching, class sizes) being equal and that is simply not having to teach to such a broad ability range and deal with as much disruptive behaviour.

The fact is that, for any given size of classroom full of kids, if you don't have the bottom x% of academic ability present, and you also don't have the worst y% of disruptively behaving kids in the room, the kids that remain, whose academic ability is >x and behaviour better than y, will get better educated.

All the state comps I've worked in have been setted.

Not sure what this has to do with ypur point that private education is no better though.

Selective schools do this.

So did my comprehensive.

Not sure what this has to do with ypur point that private education is no better though.

You might have to remind me where that was my point?

I think that my point was that there a number of reasons why selective schooling [b]is[/b] better in terms of the opportunities it affords those who will benefit from it, however those aren't mainly because there are no poor people there or that you can network with the offspring of the rich and powerful.

If it was about the money, then I'll ask the question again from a page or so ago that has been studiously ignored by those who want it to all be about wealth and / or class - why are so many parents desperate to get their kids into academically selective state grammar schools?

why are so many parents desperate to get their kids into academically selective state grammar schools?

Why wouldn't they be?

You might have to remind me where that was my point?

Just up there ^

Better education - No
Better chances in life through relationships built - yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to - yes
Segregation from the poorer in society - yes

why are so many parents desperate to get their kids into academically selective state grammar schools?

Because they get a slightly better education at the expense of a poorer one for the many. Obvious really.

edlong - Member
....The fact is that, for any given size of classroom full of kids, if you don't have the bottom x% of academic ability present, and you also don't have the worst y% of disruptively behaving kids in the room, the kids that remain, whose academic ability is >x and behaviour better than y, will get better educated...

In the days of selective testing and when schools were streamed, I was in the A class of the local academy. That put us in the top 5% of the kids of that age (based on the test).

I remember plenty disruption and misbehaviour - usually sorted out by lashings with the tawse.

(However maybe the large class sizes of the post war boom had something to do with that, or the large number of us who had fathers with what I now realise was PTSD.)

FWIW. Selective schooling isn't the same thing as private education at all. For the most part, private schools can't afford to be too choosy about who they take in. There were certainly plenty of thick layabouts at the private school I went to. OTOH my wife's nice grammar school seemed to be packed with the offspring of consultants and university professors. (There wasn't a nice grammar school in my home town at the time.)

Just up there ^

Better education - No
Better chances in life through relationships built - yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to - yes
Segregation from the poorer in society - yes

Er, that's not me you're quoting, and in fact my question was targeted at that ^ particular post as much as it was any other, i.e. if it's not about the education, but is about networking, having the "right" school on your CV / UCAS application and avoiding poor people, then people wouldn't be queuing up to get their kids into the state grammars. But they are.

Because they get a slightly better education at the expense of a poorer one for the many. Obvious really.

Okay, assume for a minute I'm an idiot and explain to me how a state grammar school negatively impacts on the quality of education of "the many"?

Okay, assume for a minute I'm an idiot and explain to me how a state grammar school negatively impacts on the quality of education of "the many"?

Well the evidence clearly shows they do. Showing how is trickier. It seems clear to me in the area I live that jobs come up far less frequently at grammar schools. I've not seen a biology job advertised in years for example. The grammars have more settled and more experienced staff compared to all the nearby comps. These more experienced staff are then not available to the many. Good teachers will often want jobs at grammars whilst struggling comps on sink estates will struggle to get any science teachers.

Yeah, that does make sense.

Damn you! 😉

Yeah, that does make sense.

A stw first...I shall have to retire this username!

Lots of talk about networking and entitlement, but in my experience (fairly ropey comp myself but quite a few friends who were boarding school boys), it’s more subtle than that. By a thousand subtle cues, they were imbued with the notion that they were the movers and shakers of tomorrow. Our guidance was more “get yourself a career”. I didn’t know anyone going to Oxbridge, it just wasn’t a thing. They were coached for the interviews.
Also, it’s tempting to characterise parents of boarding school kids as sheikhs/toffs/oligarchs, but the reality is most are middle-class folk making sacrifices to meet the fees, so as some have said the law of unintended consequences should be borne in mind by anyone messing with the system!

Because it perpetuates gross inequality of opportunity in society, in a rigged system.

Fair comment. However unfortunately utopia will never exist.

As usual, Scandinavian countries show that things that are considered impossible in the UK are very possible.

In Norway the only private schools are international schools where the parents want their children to be taught in English as well as some religious schools. The vast majority go to public schools.

So many people in the UK have been conditioned to believe that anything that levels the playing field is a naive pipe-dream.

As usual, Scandinavian countries show that things that are considered impossible in the UK are very possible.

Certainly an unintended consequence could be making the country nicer with better social mobility. Wouldnt want that!

4% of Norwegians attend private schools
4% of Scots attend private schools

Not that facts are that relevant when easy political headlines are involved.

John Swinney, the Education Secretary, said: “This will give more young people an equal chance to obtain the qualifications they need to succeed.”

And this bloke is in charge of education! No wonder it’s such a mess. But must be a miracle worker with the £5m that will be raised (while potentially jeopardising the £48m of assisted places and the possible £10m cost)

Education is our top priority - no really

Chakaping - sorry to me your reasoning suggests that you shouldn’t aspire to do better in life.

Don't apologise for your lack of comprehension skills, please.

The significant drawbacks of private education have been explained by myself and (more eloquently) by others on here.

Calling this intelligent and socially conscious criticism "the politics of envy" says much more about your own mindset than about the points you're trying to dismiss.

I think we all "aspire to do better in life" but I fear your definition of that phrase is horribly narrow and materialistic.

So funky gets it for choosing to spend his and his wife’s hard-earned money on making one of the best investments a parent can make. And people talk about moralising 😯

😆 @ chapa

Bandying around daft insulting phrases like 'politics of envy' to describe people's sincere desire for a more meritocratic society is never likely to elicit a particularly positive response is it.

I see THM still hasn't progressed beyond smugly telling everyone else they're wrong without actually offering any real opinions of his own. *sigh*

By a thousand subtle cues, they were imbued with the notion that they were the movers and shakers of tomorrow.

AKA entitlement.

4% of Norwegians attend private schools
4% of Scots attend private schools

Not that facts are that relevant when easy political headlines are involved.

As I said above, Norwegian private schools and Scottish private schools are very different.

Norwegian private schools provide a different education (international and religious) whereas in Scotland it's about providing the same education but without having to mix with the riff-raff.

However unfortunately utopia will never exist.

So let's not bother trying to make society even slightly fairer?

Sorry if facts are inconvenient for you grum. One thing for certain this is no solution. Just a headline grab. SNP politics at is best (sic).

(But isn’t it time for some of your winter photos BTW? Miss them)

why are so many parents desperate to get their kids into academically selective state grammar schools?

Jesus ****ing Christ. If you're on the titanic and it's sinking you do your damndest to get your family onto the liferafts.

That doesn't mean you support the original decision to only supply life rafts for 1/3 of the passengers.

edlong: Okay, assume for a minute I'm an idiot

We don't need to assume. The evidence is right there for all to see.

Apologies people. Letting myself get really grumpy. I despise grammar schools.

Wouldn't mind so much if the proponents just told the truth and said "i support them because it makes life better for me and my ilk; and i dont gove a **** about anyone else"

But to cling to this bullshit that it's a better fairer system just boils my piss

I'm still waiting for someone to show me their working out on how they know this policy would be a financial disaster.

Making education “fairer”

If you ban private schools wealthier parents will move to catchment area of better schools and pay for private after school tuition. It will never be “fair” and in any case if yournoarents are nit supportive of education and the wchool system the deck is heavily stacked against you re social mobility

Academically selective schools will always outperform for those kids who get in.

A Levels and University entry are academically selective. The argument is when in the process does the selection begin, A levels (and gcse/streaming) select within an instiution and Uni you must reach the standard to get in.

Because they get a slightly better education at the expense of a poorer one for the many. Obvious really.

@aa there is no reason that the existence of selective grammers in itself means other schools are automatically disadvantaged. However it is clear under the old Comp/Grammer system governments of all colours did spend less on the Comps

@aa it’s hard to argue it will be a financial disaster, what it will be is counter productive with more pressure on the state system which will imho almost certainly outweigh the tiny amount of extra money collected. The policy will be less damaging than say putting VAT on school fees would be.

It's got nothing to do with the finances as they won't get all the £5m forecast and anyway in real terms that's next to nothing. Instead it's all about the SNP trying to shore up the left wing, working class vote. The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

Are you guys suggesting that this £5m is not going to deliver what Swinney promises?? Surely not?

It's amazing the convoluted arguments people will go to to try and make out that having a level playing field is somehow a terrible thing.

Academically selective schools will always outperform for those kids who get in.

You do know this is a discussion about Scotland where there are no state provided academically selective schools?

The attitudes to the people of Scotland towards education are usually a bit different to those south of the border. By and large children go to their nearest school, we don’t have the same competition and anxiety to get off spring into the right school that happens down south. It does mean that address is a key determinant in the school you go to, and thus potentially the effectiveness of the schooling. As a result house prices are affected by catchment areas, but generally not to the extremes in some areas of England.

It's amazing the convoluted arguments people will go to to try and make out that having a level playing field is somehow a terrible thing.

I don't think many people aren't in favour of a more level playing field, however it's whether you achieve it by dragging the lower end upwards, or the upper end downwards.

Seems an excellent “litmus test” to see those who can spot “something that hangs between a bull's hind legs” and those who cannot.

Without the option of sending their children to private schools, the option of spending more on state education (and raising the taxes to pay for this) would suddenly become a lot more important.

Without the option of sending their children to private schools, the option of spending more on state education (and raising the taxes to pay for this) would suddenly become a lot more important.

I think this is hopeful thinking as the incremental effect on their local school would be minimal. I live in an affluent area of London, and what happens here is the local state schools raise serious money every year from the PTA, far more than the private schools, parents want to put their money where it directly impacts their kids.

So thm, what exactly has John Swinney promised to achieve with the 5 million saved? You allude to it above. Or are you lying again and he hasn't promised to achieve anything with it?

To be fair, no money has been saved. The question is how much will be raised as a result.

Mefty same happens in the area of Scotland I'm in. We have two local private schools and then a couple of local state schools, and the PTA for the state schools raises some serious money. I can't see that happening in the schools situated in the less affluent areas of the city.

£5 million is peanuts, he will do nothing of note with it. Whole thing is pure politics, you just have to decide whether philosophically you agree or don't. An actually real improvements with those tiny sums are likely to be sweet FA.

The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

Most middle class voters don't send their kids to private school. Only about 4% of Scottish kids go to private school, though oddly in Edinburgh it's about 25%.

Looks like a good idea really, for a lot of reasons many organisations have held advantages that are not needed now, if the private schools simply raise prices to maintain a profit then they're a business, if they keep fee's lower then they might be slightly charitable.
If they put VAT on fees then if 1 in 6 or 7 take their kids back to the public system the VAT should easily cover them.

As for tax rebates for sending your kids to private school, get in line behind those who don't have kids - state owes me for your kids being born, medical care and many other things like the annoying child benefit that they can't work out how to means test...

Again the role of charities and charitable status seem to be very different. The whole system needs looking at where various organisations have a nice status for tax but have a wealth of assets and money making abilities that do not match their giving/doing.

[quote=jambalaya ]If you ban private schools wealthier parents will move to catchment area of better schools

Ah, sorry jamba I misunderstood you, I was being dim. So it's one of these:

[img] [/img]

dragon - Member
...£5 million is peanuts, he will do nothing of note with it. Whole thing is pure politics...

Money is tight, so where should it be saved?

Stopping subsidies for a wealthy sector of the community is a good start.

Isn't Austerity a bitch when it bites the bourgeois?

It's not an SNP idea of course despite all the SNP BAAAAD stuff, they've more or less pinched it from Labour. Anyway- lots of very confident predictions of the effects of this, and none of them are based in anything but total guesswork and most seem to come from vested interests so let's treat them with the appropriate level of seriousness. We'll see if it actually leads to the fall in private school rolls that has been claimed.

I do find it interesting that people can fit in their head "it's too small an amount of money to be worth saving" and "It's a huge amount of money and it'll destroy the school sector". Too small an amount? It'd run LEAPS for a decade and help out more disadvantaged kids that way than there are students in the entire private school system. Or buy about 5% of a F35B

Too small an amount? St Leonards says it'll stop them supporting "as many" poorer kids. St Leonards it turns out give out one full bursary every 2 years on average, maybe we should be talking about a different too small number? Think of the .55% of a children!

And that's after the OSCR forced them to increase their support tenfold. Oh, you thought they do it out of the kindness of their hearts? One in three of feepaying schools tested by the OSCR failed and were forced to increase their support for poorer kids or be removed entirely from the charities register. And the SCVO says categorically that private schools shouldn't be considered charities unless they drastically improve access and support.

So no, private schools, you will not be reducing your support for poorer students, unless you want to lose all charitable benefits. And you all know this, so when you say it in the same breath as your predictions for school numbers, let's take it with a pinch of salt.

Now me, I'm not sure. Maybe the numbers will work out, maybe they won't, it really has to be tested and I think if it proves counterproductive it should be reversed. But if trusting the regulator and the charities commissioners is the politics of envy then I guess that's me.

This is a shocking idea.
All the rich people I know are now not sending their kids to private schools and are being forced to move.
It's preposterous.

Importantly for this type of discussion where no ordinary small violin will do this is one of the smallest stradivarius made...
https://tarisio.com/cozio-archive/property/?ID=40113
Of course we will need somebody with a good private education to play it....

A good move both for its practicality and its symbology. Why should the general taxpayer subsidise privilege?