AIBU that VAT on school fees makes no economical sense?

[fuckwitery]

Trying to research what it costs the state to put a child through school each year. Figures I've found show between £6 - £8k. We pay £13k per DC per year. That's prep, so will be more for senior school. So at the mo introducing VAT on these fees would add £2,600 to the state coffers. £4k for senior school.

We, and lots of others who just about manage to pay for private schooling, will be forced to take their children out. Therefore it's a NET loss for the state?

Or am I missing something.

"Well it's hardly not insulting to say that anyone who sends their kids to private school is taking advantage of an unfair system"

But that's actually true. And most people who use private education would agree, with various levels of discomfort from none to nearly overwhelming. Dismissing principles as the politics of envy is just offensive.

Op - you could take your kids out of prep school, send them to the local primary instead. And then with the money you save you'll be able to afford the extra vat on the school fees when they go to senior school!

"Just remove charitable status from the schools. Who are we kidding they are not charities; they are profitable businesses."

At present, that would require a change in the law to redefine permitted charitable aims in UK, removing education (which has quite high potential for unintended consequences for all charities).

And if you don't want to see all schools closing overnight, it also means creating a new mechanism to permit the transfer of charitable assets to private hands. Something strictly forbidden at present (IMO a very good thing).

If they could just stop being a charity I think there would be a massive exit from that sector.

I don't agree, and I don't have any kids in a private school, parents using private school are merely making the best of their options as they see it. It's no more unfair than buying your way into a nice state school area, or tutoring your children.

In fact, it's not admirable to want the best for your kids, and it's not admirable to disadvantage them for the sake of your principles. Surely every parent just does their best.

""Well it's hardly not insulting to say that anyone who sends their kids to private school is taking advantage of an unfair system"

"But that's actually true. And most people who use private education would agree, with various levels of discomfort from none to nearly overwhelming. Dismissing principles as the politics of envy is just offensive."

I tend to see it as politics of envy, when it is cherry picking issues.

So if it was hand in hand removing both parental preference and catchment systems, and instead having schools places allocated so that schools all had a balanced demongraphic; outlawing home education no making it illegal to trade as a tutor. If the goal is for everyone to as similar a set of educational opportunities as possible, that is.

And if the goal is discouraging private schools and funding state education better, why not simply stick to progressive income taxation?

On the "unfairness" debate...To me is about levels of unfairness and the level of inequality. There will always be unfairness (buying into a good state school area), but private schools seem to confer a ridiculous level of advantage. Witness the dominance of private in elite universities and certain professional areas. Having been to a private school trust me they are not 'them brightest and the best', merely the most intensely taught, monitored, mentored and 'shaped' (the much lauded ethos). It creates a glass floor as those kids don't actually end up where they should be in terms of 'sucess' relative to innate ability, which of course creates a glass ceiling too. .. of course you could just get rid of them

more deserving children advantages through expensive education

How on earth can you judge which child is more deserving than another?
The advantages the child gets is more to do with its genes, (thus passing the entrance test) and parental input (tutoring themselves) than the school itself.

PP, rather than actually closing the sites, I would gradually turn them into state schools - plenty of room that way! In any case, we will have a demographic downturn in a few years soon (barring mass immigration etc), so that will relieve a bit of pressure!

And where is the money coming back from to buy these sites from the private owners?

That wouldn't work in a million years

squirm
I agree with you.
Genetics mainly confers the advantage, not schooling.As shown by twin studies.
There is different outcomes at private school. They tend to achieve not only the similar grades to their parents but also in similar subjects!
It you corrected for that I believe people would realise private schools in themselves do not represent quite the advantage you think.

Are

Does anyone know how much more per pupil the kids in an average state school get spent on them as opposed to the kids in an average private school?

One of the arguments here is that private schools are better because they have more money whereas in my limited experience that is not always true.

The image of the upper class parents with pockets full of cash is really not the mainstream. Most are struggling to pay the fees and forgoe cars, holidays, home improvements and general spending to cover them.

In the Private schools I see less waste, less "teaching to the test", less money spent on admin. I see less money spent on teaching kids who have practically no English, and dealing with problem parents who think their special snowflake should be allowed to do what they want to. I see special needs provision cut to the bare minumum in preference to results. I see playing fields that were not sold off because some councillor wanted to win votes by house building but ancient facilities looked after. I see a pride in the school form both parents and kids that I rarely see in the State sector. That is the difference - not cash.

Sorry - I don't see special needs provision cut in the Private Sector - typo.

(My DS had zero help in the State sector - zero - because even after years and endless appointments and diagnoses and reports and meetings we didn't get a Statement. So I took him out. Privately - they saw the child needed help. Simple)

"I see less money spent on teaching kids who have practically no English, and dealing with problem parents who think their special snowflake should be allowed to do what they want to."

Yes, it's amazing what you can do when you can close your doors to children from disadvantaged backgrounds and children with complex special needs, isn't it? (I'm presuming that's what you mean by "special snowflakes"?) Incidentally, EAL children do rather well in the state system.

Some private schools have an intake which is entirely made up of children with complex additional needs.

The sector isn't homogenous. But proposals to alter tax, or abolish by removing charitable status would indeed affect all.

I note the comment about EAL doing rather well in the state sector - I know my thoughts are still rather inchoate, but I see that as agreeing with the idea that actually the differences in outcome aren't that great, which weakens the argument about buying privilege (they're not entirely mutually exclusive, but do cancel easy other out to a considerable degree)

No that is NOT what I mean as you well know.

Why does speaking a foreign language mean disadvantaged? It doesn't. It frequently means parents who have chosen to live in the UK for a while to give their kids a British education. Their parents have jobs, homes, second homes in their country of birth whether that be France, Poland, Spain, the Czech Republic, India or Algeria, (to take examples from my DS's class)

And actually no, SOME kids do better in the Sate system but many, many do not - see previous posts about SEN. My own child was left to flounder.

"Why does speaking a foreign language mean disadvantaged?"

It doesn't. It was you suggested that EAL children were a problem for state schools.

Also NO that is not what I mean by "special snowflakes" - what I mean is hours of teacher time being taken up by:

"My DD wants to wear leggings rather than trousers" - example in DD's primary. Involved everyone up to the Head. Sometimes comes up in threads here.

"My DS shouldn't have to do the detention because he tried so hard for his test - I am going to talk to the teacher about it" - another example from my DD's school.

And recently observed outside at pick up time a mother in my niece's school. "Darling, you look sad. Does Miss X know you are sad? Let's go inside and tell her that you are sad because she must know. Did something happen in school? let's talk to Miss" This child's mother talks to the teacher almost every day!!! She and twenty others!!

You made the connection between disadvantaged and foreign language. Not me.

I said that a child who speaks no English is a huge problem if you are trying to teach that child history or maths in that language. As you know. How much Chemistry do you think you would learn in a class entirely taught in Latvian or Mandarin?

In my son's school there is a special group with a TA/Support worker for three children who are all non-native speakers and so have to do special work alongside EFL teaching. They have no choice. (This is State). Menawhile the children who are struggling with dyslexia, dyspraxia, anxiety, low-self esteem - fuck them. No Statement, no help.

Also - and before I go to work we cannot say that all non-native children are disadvantaged and yet in the next argument say that most most migration, especially EU migration, is of young workers, (plumbers, nannies, builders, admin workers, doctors, nurses, carers, analysts, TA's, bank staff, Local Council employees - ), who are all putting making a positive contribution to the UK.

Anyway this is not an immigration thread - it is a Tax on Private Education thread. I mentioned non-native speakers as a small single point , (one of a list of many),in a general argument about what a State school has to deal with that a Private School does not.

Off to work now.

"In my son's school there is a special group with a TA/Support worker for three children who are all non-native speakers and so have to do special work alongside EFL teaching. They have no choice"

Out of interest, what do you think ought to happen to children? And, again out of interest, how often does this special group of three meet?

Problem -- trying to sell millions of technology to a Japanese - Korean consortium in English. ( You would probably employ a translator, yes?). Your costs would go up. I don't think you would dare to call them disadvantaged.

Do the top football clubs employ translators for their "disadvantaged" non-native speaking players? Or do they just hope they pick up the team plan as they go along???

Language has a cost. Football clubs and tech companies can afford it - and are happy to pay for it. Schools can't but are forced to and the kid who loses out has no choice.

They meet every day. They have several lessons,( just them),every day.

They have to work alone, but in class, on worksheets while the rest of a class does certain lessons. They are supervised/monitored and their work gone through in the extra lessons. The school gives them ESL lessons every day.

What do I think should happen? Good question? Not one I can answer here as I really have to go. But also not the subject of this thread.

Trouble is one is not comparing like with like and there are red herrings in here.
Independent special education costs the state an absolute fortune. Most children are not privately funded but secure places after tribunals and LAs footbthe bill. Schools Week reports 480 million being spent on private specials. Each child can cost up to £120, 000 annually for a residential special compared to the £37, 000 in an LA special. That is not what this thread is about because clearly this is a separate issue.

Children with EAL are not a homogeneous group. A very rich Swiss family who choose to send their child to Roedean is not really the same as an unaccompanied minor who has spent time in Sangatte or a family where they have been living in a detention centre pending leave to remain decisions. Some state schools have 30-40 different languages in one class. Many immigrant children do exceptionally well not because of the school but because of the parents valuing education. Take a white working class child from Great Yarmouth and a recently arrived Yemeni child and you can predict who will do better. High achmin immigrant families is why many London schools achieve such great results. However, to claim they are not disadvantaged as a group is clearly ridiculous. To have survived the traumatic journeys many have places them at a disadvantage. To live in extreme poverty as many do places them at a disadvantage. To suffer racism and abuse places them at a disadvantage. To be educated in a language you don't yet speak places them at a disadvantage. Insecurity of residence places them at a disadvantage.

The actual issue is that school fees are a way of buying elitism and advantage and should be subject to tax alongside other non essential purchases. They certainly shouldn't be classed as charity.