Thank you for this analysis and for pointing out the sloppiness of the IFS work.
My own guess is that the demand curve for private education among most UK families paying out of their own pockets (and so excluding ex-patriates where the parents' employer foots the bill or wealthy foreign nationals) would be L-shaped so that there is a tipping point at which beyond a given value of p, q will tend rapidly towards 0. A 20% VAT charge might well do the trick.
Does the IFS make the mistake of treating fee-paying schools as an homogenous group so that what applies to one school will be true of the others. A prep or private school with 120 pupils will be far more vulnerable to a small reduction in its roll than would a public school ten times that size which can draw on a generous cushion of endowments or can simply reduce the number and value of the subsidised places it offers to less well-off applicants.
In the prep school example a loss of, say, 15 pupils might lead to the school's closure causing a scramble for 120 places in nearby state schools.
The entire policy seems weirdly anachronistic and is redolent of Labour's class enmity from the pre-Blair era, designed to appeal to hard core, hard left social warriors who represent only a tiny constituency of voters.
Thanks, yes I agree. Everyone has their tipping point, of course, on a purchase that's somewhat binary (it's not a case of buying "a bit less" education, it's mostly a case of how many people drop out). That's the "last straw" point.
It does appear the IFS makes the "flaw of averages" as you say. Scale and endowment wealth are two issues, but schools are also heterogenous in terms of (1) what's the "free" competition like; is there a grammar and can it grow; is there a decent comp; or is it all (perceived as) hopeless (2) just how wealthy are the parents? Then if schools close, nearby "survivor" schools might actually find themselves in a stronger position having lost their nearest competitor.
The effect on bursaries will also vary according to whether they are paid out of current school fees (ie.., transfer from other parents) or from an endowment. If the former, they'll be under colossal pressure to stop. If the latter, it could still vary as to whether the endowment is legally separate from or part of the school.
Why are they doing this? Ostensibly (and what's polling well) because the "tax breaks are unfair" which is entirely false as I've written previously on these pages; and because "it's certain to raise money and make state schools better" which is false per this post. Peel back those falsehoods and, as you say, you're left with envy and anger as the true motivations for this.
Thank you for this analysis and for pointing out the sloppiness of the IFS work.
My own guess is that the demand curve for private education among most UK families paying out of their own pockets (and so excluding ex-patriates where the parents' employer foots the bill or wealthy foreign nationals) would be L-shaped so that there is a tipping point at which beyond a given value of p, q will tend rapidly towards 0. A 20% VAT charge might well do the trick.
Does the IFS make the mistake of treating fee-paying schools as an homogenous group so that what applies to one school will be true of the others. A prep or private school with 120 pupils will be far more vulnerable to a small reduction in its roll than would a public school ten times that size which can draw on a generous cushion of endowments or can simply reduce the number and value of the subsidised places it offers to less well-off applicants.
In the prep school example a loss of, say, 15 pupils might lead to the school's closure causing a scramble for 120 places in nearby state schools.
The entire policy seems weirdly anachronistic and is redolent of Labour's class enmity from the pre-Blair era, designed to appeal to hard core, hard left social warriors who represent only a tiny constituency of voters.
Thanks, yes I agree. Everyone has their tipping point, of course, on a purchase that's somewhat binary (it's not a case of buying "a bit less" education, it's mostly a case of how many people drop out). That's the "last straw" point.
It does appear the IFS makes the "flaw of averages" as you say. Scale and endowment wealth are two issues, but schools are also heterogenous in terms of (1) what's the "free" competition like; is there a grammar and can it grow; is there a decent comp; or is it all (perceived as) hopeless (2) just how wealthy are the parents? Then if schools close, nearby "survivor" schools might actually find themselves in a stronger position having lost their nearest competitor.
The effect on bursaries will also vary according to whether they are paid out of current school fees (ie.., transfer from other parents) or from an endowment. If the former, they'll be under colossal pressure to stop. If the latter, it could still vary as to whether the endowment is legally separate from or part of the school.
Why are they doing this? Ostensibly (and what's polling well) because the "tax breaks are unfair" which is entirely false as I've written previously on these pages; and because "it's certain to raise money and make state schools better" which is false per this post. Peel back those falsehoods and, as you say, you're left with envy and anger as the true motivations for this.