Should Private School fee payers get a tax rebate

[Pamplemousecat]

Just following on from another thread. If a child isn’t in the state system should the parents still have to pay the proportion of tax that is taken for education?

Is it so bad if they can’t survive?

I actually don’t mind choice but as a market it doesn’t need propping up.

Bertrand - can I ask where you live roughly?

Where I live (SW London, think Hammersmith way), closing the independent schools would most certainly not mean an extra 30 kids per state school. What nonsense. You can’t get into a state school as it is. Have you any idea?

The reality is that the independent schools found around here are highly selective and unfortunately there is a wide gulf between results at GCSE - eg 95% 9-7 at GCSE compared to around 30% at an “outstanding” state school which you would have to pay hundreds of thousands in stamp duty to get into the catchment area for.

Yes- i don’t get the outrage. Why should private schools be propped up by the tax payer?

“What nonsense. You can’t get into a state school as it is. Have you any idea? ”
I did say my 2 per year was a very crude figure- I am aware that it would be very different in different areas. I was just trying to counter the scaremongering!

“The reality is that the independent schools found around here are highly selective and unfortunately there is a wide gulf between results at GCSE - eg 95% 9-7 at GCSE compared to around 30% at an “outstanding” state school ”

Not sure what you mean by this. Of course a highly selective school is going to get much “results” than a non selective school.

I have to put a voice in for schools for children with special needs here. They are so low on anyones list. Banning schools that select - well my child school you have to have one of a number of medical conditions, you have to have an ehcp, the fees have to be paid by the LA; you have to have failed in mainstream school and you have to be sufferring from trauma as a result of your needs not being met in mainstream school. Probably not the type of selection you meant but selection all the same.
Regarding fess, they actually charge the LA slightly less than it costs the LA to place a child in its own closest equivelent school but the LA one doesnt support trauma in the same way. They use cahms, which is another story. And its full.
As for parental choice. The LA didnt have a school that could meet my childs needs. All the schools said 'no". So he went to no school at all for a year. That was the state offering. Zero education. If this school hadnt offered a place we would still have zero education.
As for a charity - well its enough of a charity that other schools, WIs, fun runners see fit to raise funds and donate when they see the work it does.

This is a segment from the end of term letter from the head at the independent school my DC attend, which has a thriving bursary programme and won the Times Social Mobility Award -

Bertrand, what I meant by that comment is that if the reality of the choice is to pay hundreds of thousands in stamp duty to move into the catchment of a good or outstanding state school (which are few and far between in some inner city areas), many will decide to use the money in school fees instead - particularly when there is such a wide gulf in outcomes. This is assuming you have a child who will get through the entrance exams and interview of course, but the same decision might be valid if you want a more supportive school for you child.

So you mean should everyone pays specifically to educate their children - either via tax or school fees -?

No that's not the point of state education.

Plus private schools already have charitable status for tax purposes so those parents already in effect get a tax rebate.

Plus private schools already have charitable status for tax purposes so those parents already in effect get a tax rebate

Some private schools.

I have a far bigger issue with state funded faith schools who are selective - that has a far bigger impact on the state system than private schools.

Someone made a point up thread that why should private schools get vat off when someone using state schools still has to pay vat on their local swimming lessons/clubs. Actually I never thought of that and it is a fair point. Private schools get all these amazing extracurricular activities. My school does very little and if I want my child to benefit from some I have to ferry them about and pay VAT.

They also benefit from having holidays at different times to the rest of the nation and don’t have to pay extortionate princess to take their children away.

So my opinion may be changing a bit by this thread.

I also think if they are means testing children to allow some pupils to get financial assistance you may get children from the poorest aspects of society going and the richest and those on middle incomes or those with high incomes but multiple kids being left out and losing out as usual. I might be wrong on that though. Just a thought.

State schools do get funding on a per pupil basis. I work in a school in a town with a growing population and a growing population of children. Y7 is about two classes bigger than Y11. The school has been able to employ extra teachers to accommodate these students. They have also been able to apply for a grant to build some new classrooms.

Even though the state system is under funded and there are issues in my school (e.g. Not enough TAs, for example) it is possible for schools to accommodate a growing population of students.

Yes, there are areas of the country where there are problems with school places, but this could be solved by allowing Las to build new schools.

And if more people at the top of society had to use state schools, there would be more understanding of the issues they face and they'd probably get more funding!

The money is there for trident and brexit and HS2. If that money was spent on schools, we could offer everyone an excellent education!

I hesitate to link to a guardian article for fear of justifiable mockery, but at least it’s not behind a paywall, lien the Telegraph article called in aid down the thread. And I think it sets out the case for removal of charitable status very well.
Here

Lol, why would you get a refund?

Obviously all tax is paid to provide for all in society. You would benefit from the education funding indirectly, unless you will living off the grid not requiring anyone to provide you with any goods or services for the rest of your life.

If you are paying 45k pa, the 20% vat would take it to 54k, i doubt that is going to worry most parents with kids at a boarding school, would half that for day pupils.
So would not lead to a flurry of parents putting their kids into the nearest comp.

With all due respect jasjas I don't know whether you have experience of private schools but in my experience that is not the case at all.

At the private school my kids attend there are a lot of parents who are definitely not rich, they live in very average houses (and sometimes flats) but to them private school is obviously a bigger priority than other things. There are also a lot of parents who have been given a discount on fees. But generally there's not a huge difference in the wealth of private school families versus the best state schools with the sought after catchments.

For those people a 20% increase would just push into being unaffordable.

We are probably wealthier than some of the people I describe above but an immediate 20% increase would make us rethink our plans. Currently only one dc is in private school but have two younger preschoolers so eventually we need to have the money to pay for fees for three kids. So a 20% increase for three would probably mean an extra £10k which probably pushes it in to being unaffordable.

So for the younger two we'd apply for the local state school and save the money for secondary or the later years of primary school. We live close enough to definitely get into an outstanding state school, so we'd just bump someone else's kid from getting a place at one of the most sought after state schools in our area.

People who will scrimp and save enough to squeeze together the fees for school will not accept their kid going to the worst state schools if they can no longer afford private. They'll move house / go to church or do whatever to make sure that doesn't happen.

My 2 are at a small local prep school. I and a few parents I know would not be able to keep them there if we had to pay 20% VAT. We can just about afford to send them. We sacrifice holidays cars etc.

380 children at the school. Local state primary is chocca, failing already and has been in emergency measures for the past 6 years. All the little village schools have been closed and this primary now has 4 intakes of 36 per class. Each year.

So where would the 380 go?

By sending our 2 to independent school we are saving the taxpayer £15k per year.

I don't buy into the rebate idea. I also certainly don't accept that people with no children should get a rebate as whilst they aren't costing £15k they aren't saving it as they don't have children.

I think we should be pulling up the standards and facilities at state schools not pushing down by getting rid of private schools. Many of which do so well precisely because they aren't encumbered by the state and curriculum.

No issue at all with private education, we’ve dipped in and out of both according to need. It’s entirely a personal choice though and of course we should not have been given a tax rebate. We all benefit from society one way or another and it has to be paid for.

I've read the article. I'm naturally left leaning, i love a local comprehensive. I dont like how entrenched privildge is in society. I'm still fed up of special educational needs being ignored by everone as if it doesnt exist. Its part if the debate. Its part of the debate on education as a whole, school funding as a whole and is part of the private school debate too.

The whole point of tax is that those with more money share some of it with those who don't have so much.

If you can afford a private school you should still pay towards state schools.

If you can afford a private hospital you should still pay towards the NHS.

In fact we all pay towards things we don't use, as well as things we do. That's how society works.

I always turn this one around when childless couples complain of having to pay for other people's children's education. I say that actually they are paying for their own education in arrears.

Yes but then should be a rebate for those without kids too

Where does this rebate money come from?

What gets cut or who pays more

I always turn this one around when childless couples complain of having to pay for other people's children's education. I say that actually they are paying for their own education in arrears.

What if the childless couple were privately educated?

(Not that I agree with the rebate idea, I just don't think the 'arrears' theory is a good argument against it).

If private schools closed those pupils will not be distributed evenly across all schools so it’s not right to state that the pupils can be absorbed into the state system. In many circumstances it will cost local authorities money that they don’t have, with a need to build extra classes and recruit teachers. It’s not replicated in other cities but in Edinburgh 25% of secondary pupils are privately educated the state school system would be overwhelmed if it had to take in those pupils. And no the existing schools couldn’t be used unless they were bought by the state - where is that money going to come from?

That said no there shouldn’t be a tax rebate. Though I don’t agree with charging vat.

“That said no there shouldn’t be a tax rebate. Though I don’t agree with charging vat.”
Are you happy with the charitable status?