AIBU to feel that the ‘Labour against Private Schools’ campaign is a scapegoat for a lack of vision for educational reform?

[BusyMum1978]

2500 UK independent schools with 615K children attending which is 7% of the population of children in FT education up to the age of 16. A number of articles published this week have highlighted the campaign supported by Labour MP’s, who are calling for a number of measures impacting Independent Schools including their complete abolishment, and for these schools to become part of the state school system. A real hatred seems to be forming, and it feels to me like an easy smoke screen to put up rather than the Labour Party providing very specific policies to show how state funded education will be reformed.

I completely understand the feeling behind the imminent appointment of our 20th Etonian PM - there is urgent reform required in politics to have equal representation which I wholeheartedly agree with. I also understand the recently published stats showing accelerated social mobility for those attending top independent schools. I am not saying that there aren’t areas for improvement- but is the objective to bring more children up, or to bring the independently educated 7% down to make it ‘fair’?

My children both attend a prep school, and they are the first generation in both mine and my husband’s family to do so. We aren’t rich, neither of us have a degree, we own one property. We have -and continue to- work hard and made a choice to invest in our children’s education. We know we are privileged to be able to do so. To hear that MP’s want to wage a ‘class war’ with a family like mine feels inflammatory and yet more decisiveness in an already fractured country.

My children started their education in a state primary school but quite honestly it wasn’t good enough, and our heads were turned by what the private sector had to offer.

It equally broke my heart and inspired me to read The Times article on The Willow in Broadwater Farm school. Schools like this desperately need funding and further support, as do a range of children’s services which were cut during austerity. However will abolishing independent schools help a school like this? Parents who have money will still gravitate to the best areas / schools, and get tutors etc. There are a large number of selective state secondary schools that require heavy tutoring to access.

We need to nurture brilliant young minds in this country, to plug the UK skills gap, and compete in a global market. The independent sector has a valuable role to play.

Progress and globalisation is happening at such a rate that it’s becoming a bit uncomfortable. Many jobs our children will do haven’t even been invented yet.

The independent schools could work more closely with the state sector, but it concerns me that this campaign is chasing an ideal, and if successful would just shift the problem elsewhere.

Private schools are not there to help the vast majority. They are there to give an option to those who are willing to exercise a democratic choice to pay for something from their hard earned income. Those who go private pay taxes that fund state education plus they free up spaces, reducing over crowding.

You want to punish these parents by removing that option? You thinm the solution is to make sure no one has a better opportunity or option than another? Reduce everyone to having the same choice. Anyone trying to reach for more or better should be brought back down.

Where does 3.5bn come from? I think labour have spoken about 1 to 1.5bn and that they would use it to fund free school meals. As Xenia has pointed out there is very unlikely any corporation tax to be paid. Schools would also be able to reclaim VAT not only on day to day expenditure but also on capital projects making significant reductions on the VAT to be paid. Combine that with the inevitable move of some students to the state then there will probably be very little revenue raised.

Not including numbers of students in Scotland and Wales the 1.5bn (if that amount is even raised) is approx 200 per pupil in England, will that even cover free meals?

schools can already claim VAT back on day to day expenditure, I'm not sure youare correct that they pay tax on capital spending either.

3.5 billion is both the Treasury figure for estimate in the cost of VAT exemption amd the Oxford economics figure for what it would cost to educate every private school pupil in the state system, assuming new schools had to be built.

A pp stated that 3.5bn would immediately be raised not that this was the cost of the exemption or educating private pupils in the state system.

I’m definitely not a vat expert but this article talks about vat in schools and how in future vat can be recovered under the capital goods scheme if vat is added to school fees:

mtmconsulting.co.uk/preparing-for-vat-on-school-fees/

an element of VAT is recoverable on capital projects not all. And only when spread out over a period. The figure given there is 60,000 per year for 5 years om a build which incurred a total 3m cost. Jow many schools build that many blocks in a decade ? This wouldn't cost the government more than would be gained from the removal of tax exemption.

The 3.5bn is the treasury figure for the cost of the VAT exemption

Quite a lot of things are exempt from VAT. I’m not an expert on the area but it does seem to me that there isn’t much of a coherent rationale behind what’s exempt and what isn’t. As a charge for services though it applies to classes of service, though, not classes of supplier. Do we really want to say that educational services should be VAT able when, say, insurance-related services are not? Why would we want that position? It only really makes sense when you take into account that those calling for this are motivated by hatred of the private education sector, not the holier than thou motives they claim to have.

Not at all.

Private schools have VAT exemption as part of their charitable status, they dont act as charities in their main capacity and very few students are actually funded as a whole.

Quite happy for the ones that give, oh say 25 percent of students a full free ride charitable status, and no, no scholarships for kids from already wealthy back grounds.

Insurance has IPT.

As the law currently stands, though, they do act as charities. Education is a charitable purpose. Do you want to change that? What would that mean for independent SEN schools? How does making them run as corporations, with duties to shareholders, make the problem better? Surely it makes it worse, doesn’t it?

I know about IPT. I know the sector very well. I am talking about transactions between insurance companies. When an insurer enters into a distribution contract, and pays the distributor, this is VAT exempt provided certain conditions are adhered to. Is this right? Greedy fat insurers get away with it while schools don’t? I don’t get the rationale

I would certainly make the criteria stricter, the ISC figures on the number of students who get any kind of funding show that most schools don't act as charities.

There are of course exception, and of course the number of SEN private schools is very small so exceptions could be made.

The greedy fat insurers thing is a strawman. There are taxes on policies.

It’s not a straw man at all. These are genuine transactions, high value, between large corporations which are VAT exempt. Not policy sales subject to IPT. Why’s that ok, but schools have to get screwed?
The answer is you hate the schools and the people who use them. Your petty hatred are not a basis for policy making.
The number of SEN schools in the independent sector is not small. In the field of ASD, they are the ones making all the running in terms of improving outcomes. I’ve done this before on similar threads; people like you really need to research these schools, think about how important it is to have non state contributors to education, especially in challenging circumstances, and reflect on the unintended consequences that might come from satisfaction of your spite.

No the way you phrased it was.

How many SEN schools are there? What percentage do they make up of the total number? Id also challenge that they are doing all the running in research.

Btw did you see the point i made about there could of course be some exemptions for special schools?

Your stuff about "hating"? Strawman again.

I've repeatedly given you the figures for thr number of children given help and how many of them get a full ride or more thsn half the fees. Its tiny.

Quick scan of government data shows about 200 specialist schools in the independent sector for SEN. Less than 10 percent of the total, and certainly educating less than 10 percent of the total number of students.

there are not very many SEN schools that deal with kids who DONT have learning difficulties.
A high functioning, even gifted child, is not going to do well in the majority of SEN specialist schools because that is not their remit. If they are academically able, that is the only criteria that the council judge FROM MY EXPERIENCE and so any issues about anxiety/overwhelming is dismissed. Even more so if they do not have aggressive behaviour.
Ive already had one child fall off the cliff due to this. She has medical issues too which mean that she is unlikely to ever be able to work full time, but the results of having to be taken out of school means that at 18 she is way behind her peers and has multiple problems.
when her 13 year old brother was heading the same way we looked at many options, and selling everything I could, cutting back on everything, using his DLA and him getting some funding help, between his father and I we can just about afford to put him into a tiny, nurturing, private school.
Its not as simple as saying that the SEN schools have the capacity, because you need to have the right SEN schools.
additionally mixing sensitive ASD kids with kids with severe behavioual issues die to trauma - which often happens - is not beneficial to either group.
And it takes often years to get to the point where the LEA agree to pay for your child to go to an SEN school - if they are not acting out at school and have completely failed and fallen out of the system, they wont even consider it - you have to fight, you probably will have to go to a tribunal, you may have to pay thousands for legal representation - which again puts those who cant afford it or may not have the ability to negotiate through the maze of SEN legal jargon at a huge disadvantage, and during all that time your child is potentially excluded and falling further behind. You are going to need an education and healthcare plan before you even start, and thats another long,hard battle.
If your child doesnt fall apart until secondary school it can literally take you their KS3 education before you got funded and accepted in an appropriate SEN school. And thats not guaranteed.

So if there aren’t very many ... they don’t matter? What’s the logic here?
If you want exemptions how do you draw them? If you say only schools dedicated to children with diagnosed SN can have charitable status - which I assume is what you’re getting at - what about kids with emotional or behavioural difficulties who don’t have a specific dx who are being educated outside the state to meet their specific needs? Dx can be very hard to come by. And what about kids with dx who don’t need specialist schools but do have specific needs that state can’t ir won’t meet (my ds situation). Can they all just go hang?
You haven’t really thought this through ... because it doesn’t matter. Like most lefties you’re only interested in kids with SN as a stick to beat the tories with.

so good are our private schools people flock from all over the planet to be educated under that system so it is win win for the UK

Really?

Foreign students make 10% of the total, about 58k, the vast majority come from German, HK and China... hardly all over the planet nor flocking!

Half of whom have parents working here in the UK, so a natural choice, 28k send their kids here to study out of preference.

To put that in context, 460k foreign students study at the UKs Uni's

No one is suggesting suddenly closing down the UK's private schools, IF it ever happened (highly unlikely) it would be done over many years.

Again you are making strawman arguments. I said exceptions could be made for special schools and as there are so few of them, educating a tiny percentage of children that are privately educated, this wouldn't make much of a difference to over all tax take fron VAT.

You claimed there were lots of special schools, there aren't.

Its funny how all privatr school supporters here are parents of SN students (who are massively under represented in private schools) or missed out on all of their choices for primary (less than 1 percent of all kids) or are some kind of frugal geni and manage to send kids to privatr school on an average income.

Its also interesting how the same people will argue for lower taxes and claim that hard work and good choices result in success whilst buying their privileges and advantages

Like all conservatives they are conceited hypocrites.

So, when you can’t deal with inconvenient truths, you accuse those bringing them to your attention of fabricating them.
I could get angry but to be honest I am laughing now. You are so typical of your type.

So just to ask why should we also not abolish private healthcare or private dental?????

Is that silly....... yep it is

I'm just saying that everyone who comes in these threads as a private school parents seems to be representitive of a very small part of the over all group.

I never said they were liars.

Typical of your type? Sweeping generalisation fail.

You appear to be getting angry because I've argued with facts, private schools do not behave as charities, they shoukd be taxed accordingly. Provision could be made for special needs schools but there are so few, and they teach a tiny percentage of the overall total nunber of students that it wouldn't make a difference to the over all tax take.

I

I live in a leafy area with lots of grammar schools plus a couple of excellent faith schools. There are still a few UC families who send their kids off to boarding schools, but most of the MC use the state system. The typical picture among this group goes something like this: Child attends excellent state primary (buy house in catchment). Mum stays at home, made possible because of all the money 'saved' by not 'having' to pay school fees, but also because there's lots to do - organising lots of PTA events to raise thousands for the school, project managing house improvements to raise value of already valuable house still further (for nice lifestyle plus nice inheritance for the kids), organising lots of extra curricular activities to make up for lack of facilities in the state sector, ferrying child to said activities, booking culturally enriching holidays, and organising tutoring for child to either pass 11+ or just to 'top up' the school provision. Child then gets a place at outstanding GS, or outstanding faith school if not quite bright enough for grammar (where entry can be achieved either by church attendance or by moving into expensive catchment) .

This is what will happen more and more if private schools are abolished. Yes, you could get rid of grammar and faith schools too, but you'd still have selection by catchment. The idea that all these families would suddenly have equality of opportunity with the working class if private schools were abolished is laughable. Money will always buy privilege.

Money will always buy privilege, but we shouldn't pretend that private schools are charities because of this.

Also, acknowledging this is important because it utterly disproves the "hard work and good choices" mantra of th3 right wingers which is used to justify tax cuts and lower welfare spending.

Once that is acknowledged we can justify higher rates of taxation and increased spending on schools.

Agreed, though I do think there are some schools that work pretty hard to justify their charitable status (admittedly probably a minority). And I agree with your point about the right wing mantra - but we also need to beware left wing knee kerk reactions. Abolishing private schools without pretty much transforming state provision could well mean that there are fewer good state school places available for poorer kids, not more.

We gave up our place at one of the schools above in favour of a private school (with a big bursary). I'd like to think that the place we freed up went to a child from a disadvantaged background who would otherwise have gone to a poorly-performing alternative. But it's statistically more likely that it went to a child from a prep school who just missed the cut, and that all we've done is 'saved' them from having to pay school fees.

@windsbegintosing you have completely hit the nail with your observation of the type of family that sends their child to the best state schools. There would be more families like this if private schools were abolished, and taking more of the state school places in the most affluent areas. You cannot eradicate the privilege that money buys, one way or another those children will have an advantage.