Is Bridget Phillipson's tweet accurate?

What is interesting is the glee shown from supporters of VAT about the impact on indy kids. Actual glee at kids being without a school. It isnt the fault of the kids that their parents chose indy yet they are the ones impacted.
If this had been a properly thought put policy it would be tapered and kids currently in Indy schools would be exemt until the natural break points, exactly like Starmer was when his grammar turned into an indy.

It's her sneering attitude to sports and exercise facilities that upsets me. Children everywhere have suffered from the closure of public pools, selling off of sports fields and parks and the de facto privatisation of play opportunities. The biggest factor in children's mental well being is access to exercise and outdoors. Girls are particularly likely do a lot less activity.

Schools don't need mental health hubs selling otherwise healthy teen problems (which is essentially what they do) - they need sports, play & outdoor classrooms.

It's a stupid tweet because it implies private schools are rolling in money and frivolously spending money on ye olde embossed stationary to perpetuate the stereotype lots of people have that they're all like hogwarts or stuck in the past. I agree it's needlessly stoking tensions, just be done with it if they're going to do it, none of this pathetic, childish tweeting.

Also regarding mental health, improve support and provision outside of schools for this and then give funding in order to be able to recruit an adequate number of teachers and support staff. Schools are becoming a catch all picking up the pieces of failing parts of the system and it's one of the reasons they're sinking; giving some arbitrary funding that won't touch the sides and won't provide anything that is as effective as having a functioning MH service and support will probably make things worse.

Because the policy is already making teachers redundant maybe? That's why teaching unions are calling for the policy to be delayed

So how about the Indy places that the government already pays for: military and SEN? Are you against these?

Private health care is usually funded through benefit schemes though. So patients don't pay the full cost of an operation, they do it through health insurance. So if the same principle applied then yes we would do this because we would pay an education policy and then get the fees paid at a reduced rate with tax benefits.

Probably what inspired her. Cause no imagination/creativity

@twistyizzy they have a hell of a lot to do. They won't get it all done in this first budget. They are trying.

It's telling that teachers in the state sector are happy with the new education secretary but it's only private school parents who aren't.

@itwasnevermine the government DOES use some private school places to help.

Military families.

Some SEND kids- the council pays for private education becuase there is nothing appropriate in state schools in the area.

No that's not my argument, stop putting words into my mouth

Highly interesting use of language ie "divide" etc.
Can I ask whether you want to improve state or just attack indy sector? Because if you want to improve state why aren't you bothered that Labour aren't promising extra funding in order to do that?

@Nordione1 that's not how it works. The government gets a more favourable price as it's a bulk use of the service, the same as they do in the healthcare system.

@twistyizzy well, no. Because that's not how it works. Those who choose it pay the full price, much the same as the private healthcare system.

Essentially you're happy for the 500k children to get it all and the other 9.7 million don't matter to you. Got it. Your only argument against it is "I don't like it"

If the government (well, us as taxpayer) paid the fees the same as all the other parents including the VAT.

Why isn't it about that? You were the one who brought inequality in, well there are massive inequalities currently within the state system and as 93% kids attend state school then potentially these are greater than at indy.

"Maintaining that divide" is socialist engineering speak though. Parents (if able) chose a non stat option for their child and pay for it themselves. If the divide is to reduce it is for the government to raise standards in state schools (which private school parents also pay for).

The problem with VAT on education is that, as no where else in Europe adds it to education. Education is seen as a good in itself no matter who receives it. This is because these countries are enlightened and wish to support education as an end in itself.

Yes but then I would also want the government to fund my DDs basic place and I would top up to the fee level. That's what many countries do ie a voucher system.
You can't have it both ways!

@twistyizzy this conversation isn't about that though is it?

Again, answer me. Would you be happy for state pupils to be sent to the private system in order to ease the load, as they do with the NHS?

They can't ban them, they want to but it is too complicated and expensive.
We used state for primary and will use it again for 6th form. I'm not against state however you may want to paint me.
I'm all for proper funding of state, what I'm saying is that this isn't how to do it.
If you are so invested them you could always register with HMRC to pay more tax on order to fund state schools. They have that facility.
I also don't see any answer from you about addressing the greater inequality that currently exists in the state sector ie parents buying houses in good catchment, grammars + tutoring.

@twistyizzy

So you're against VAT, but you're also against the private system being used to ease the burden on the state schools.

So it's about maintaining that divide.

If they wanted rid of private schools they'd ban them. Most people wouldn't give a toss because the vast majority of pupils in school are in state schools. You just can't admit that it's unfair for parents to buy a huge advantage for their children without there being a benefit to society.

Yes that was particularly revealing. Awful woman.

I've never seen embossed stationery coming out of schools. Has she got confused with headed notepaper from the school office? Is that deemed not allowed any more for being Too Fancy and therefore unfair on the rest of us? Who knows as she's not using logic in any of her policies so far.

No I wouldn't because I oppose taxing education in any form. That is the guiding principle across Europe.
If you are in favour of it then presumably you support VAT on nursery and uni fees? Trust me, they are coming! This is a gateway policy

Noone is arguing that state schools aren't under funded but quite simply that isn't the fault of indy schools.
Labour aren't attempting to increase funding in state schools that will enable improvement. They are tinkering around the edges with a divisive and damaging policy designed to inflict pain on the 550,000 kids in Indy sector whilst bringing no significant improvement in state.
If you do the research you will find that the biggest cause of inequality is having, or not having, 2 parents in a household. Education is #8 yet indy schools are being scapegoated by Labour as the root of all evil in the world and that by attacking them then all inequality will magically vanish.
There is massive inequality in state sector already but i dont see anyone challenging that. There will always be people who can buy privilege for their kids: affording house in catchment of best state schools, paying for tutors, grammar schools etc. Until you get rid of this then you will never have equality in education, with or without indy schools.

@twistyizzy I believe they should also cut costs.

Presumably if you're so against VAT, you'd be happy for the government to tender out to private schools like they do private hospitals? So the schools get approached, get an amount of money from the government (smaller than the current fees, which are terribly inflated), and the private school system is used to ease the pressure on the state schools, much like private hospitals and the NHS?

Class sizes of 30, the fee paying children still benefit from the teachers, and state pupils get the education they deserve too.

Surely that would be fine? Or is it about maintaining the divide between public and state schools?

And how much do Heads at MATs get paid? Ridiculous to suggest that indy schools should cut costs when they aren't funded by tax payer yet MATs, which are funded by taxpayer, often have incredibly bloated SLT. Don't see Labour attacking these?