it's daft to think parents with kids in private school have money to burn?

[Popgoestheweaselagain]

Just got asked by my school what would be the impact if they had to pay VAT, adding 20% to fees. My response was 'I'd try to keep my child in the school, but ....'. I think almost all parents would respond this way. Alarmed, did a quick google, and found this is Labour policy. Next time they come knocking at my door looking for my vote, I'll be telling them why they can't have it!

Now, I understand why some people are ideologically opposed to private schools, the unfariness etc. But when I hear this argument that goes something like 'Those people must have loads of money because they send their kids to private school' it kind of annoys me. Money is finite. If you've spent all your money on school fees, you obviously don't have it anymore!

I hadn't realised Starmer was so close to my age. He was born in 1962. 11+ was disappearing rapidly across England in the 1960s and 1970s, during Tory governments as well as Labour. One big reason: many middle class parents didn't like grammar schools. If their children didn't pass the 11+ they would probably have to go either to a secondary modern or a private school. Also, a lot of grammar schools were small and stuffy, living in the past, trying to be like public schools but not really up to that standard. The brand new comprehensive schools with their all-ability intake, shiny new labs, drama studios, modern curriculum and trendy teachers/teaching methods were more attractive to many parents and children.

Hmm, I am opposed to both, but personally think grammars are more fucked up than a private school sector. I agree with the tax changes proposed here for private schools, but grammars are completely mental.

And they didn;t move to a grammar area, or tutor him, as far as I am aware

How on earth would you be party to that information? Do you know that for fact?

Of course it would be per child who did not take up their provision of state education so obviously (as if this really needs saying) there would be no rebate due if the child doesn't exist.

Home educated would get a rebate - again, the cost has not been provided for by the state so the home educator gets the rebate for providing the education.

Special needs is in the same class as medical care and pensions: it varies per person and is unpredictable therefore the cost is socialised.

Not ridiculous at all - entirely fair and flexible.

It would be removing private schools from the list of eligible bodies that would make private schools have to charge VAT. This can be done easily. The reason why they were given eligible body status in the first place was due to their charitable status. To say the two are not linked is wrong.

It totally makes sense, we need people to privately educate as we don’t even have enough funding for the ones in state school, imagine it bloody doubled.

But if as estimated only 17% of kids currently private switched to state, the VAT on the others school fees would more than make up for the extra cost of educating that 17%.

His back story is that they lived in the same house the whole time, isn't it?

I have never heard of him having special tutoring, although he does credit them with 'encouraging' him.

What is going to double ?

Your maths is fucked up.

The idea is that all the private school parents who move their children to state will to cause a big uproar and insist the government funds them properly. Great plan right?

WanttoKnow the State Grammar system that exists now is not how it existed in the 1970s. Catchment areas and property prices weren't a thing back then.

Students took the 11+ and passed or not. Some County Girls passed when their Primary Schools expected them not to, some were extra-tutored, most weren't. I know of some kids (boys) that passed but their parents didn't want them to go (to the Snob's School). We were a varied bunch.

To get into the Girls Grammar you needed to be in the top 90 of 11+ Results for a wide geographical area, same for the Boys I imagine.

It's all gone tits up since then and I completely agree with your criticisms of the present situation.

Personally, I think you're burning money by wasting it on private schools...fancy buildings, smaller class sizes, more sucking up to parents and glossy marketing brochures, but not necessarily a better education. So YABU imo.

Private education is absolutely a luxury so I really see no reason why you shouldn't pay VAT. It's a shame if it means that some kids have to move, but that's a risk you chose to take when you went private, I suppose - this isn't exactly a new idea, and you should have considered it as a possibility from the outset.

It isn't as if your kids will be left without access to education. If you're worried about disruption in exam years, there will be another 2 years before the next election so plenty of time to move if you wish.

As for the increased pressure on the state sector if some kids have to move, perhaps it can be funded by using the extra tax take from the ones who decide to stay put. The only difference is that it will be used for the benefit of all children and not just the privileged few.

You really are stirring the pot here. It will happen or it won’t. I am not happy with the conservative government but I’m not rubbing my hands with glee over what others may or may not end up paying in tax. If it happens, it happens and we will all have to make our decisions then.

Yes. I’m afraid this reminds me of people who hate the idea of any government other than Tory so much, that they say they will leave the country if anyone else gets in.

My DD has just started in reception at a fee paying school. This wasn’t our original intention (we applied for state schools) but after being allocated none of our choices we looked elsewhere

I do actually have one child with additional needs. It was a necessity for that child. Once you've done it for one, how could you possibly send your others to the local 'special measures' school if you could scrape the money together via various ingenious means which don't necessarily mean having a massive income. My children wouldn't have been educated at the local school, other than in ways that no self-respecting naice MNer would wish.

I might have sucked up paying VAT on school fees as a so-called 'luxury' if I had had a tax rebate on the money I'm not paying to use the state sector. As it is, it all reminds me that however much I loathe this Tory government (and its predecessor), I could never, ever vote Labour.

It's a crazy idea to think all parents should pay VAT on private school. My children go to private school and we are hardly wealthy. We simply would not have the extra cash to spare if they decided to charge VAT. I think there is a big misunderstanding that all private school families are incredibly well off. That is simply not the case. Most families at my children's school earn moderate incomes, don't drive flashy cars or anything, the parents aren't all decked out in designer clothing and the children don't ride ponies for a pastime. They put their extra money into their children as an investment into their future. We pulled my child out of public school because he couldn't cope and get the help he needed in a class of 30 children. He was lost and not doing well. Now he is thriving and gets the extra help he needs.

Tax cuts for the lowest earners? You sound quite ignorant. The lowest earners don't pay any income tax, though they do pay other taxes such as VAT. How have taxes been cut for them?

They are not all Eton

I would just like to say that Eton is not the school that people think it is. It is a lovely, warm, kind, nurturing school that anyone would be thrilled for their son to attend. It bears no resemblance to the popular perception.

Can you explain why grammars are more f**d up than a private school sector and completely mental? Genuine question. I agree that a single sector for all that is fit for purpose is the best solution but why are grammars so much worse than private schools? Surely it's just the private sector's currency is money (and selective ones academic ability too) and grammar schools' currency is academic ability. I agree that grammar schools are not the best model but I'd rather selection is on academic ability than how much money parents have. And anyway, the grammar school system is tiny and banging on about that just deflects from the bigger issue of a two-tier system, which is bad for society.

I'm afraid its reputation is heavily influenced by the large number of arrogant out-of-touch twats that the school has managed to churn out over the years.

Maybe Eton isn't actually responsible for their twattishness, but it doesn't appear to have done a great deal to address it.

There was one more comment about rich people not accepting low standards or cuts. How exactly am I going to achieve this? Do I just walk in, tell everyone my DH is an investment banker, get a bit stroppy, clutch my pearls and that will do it? Or, will I get the same reaction from the teachers that state parents get?

I have also asked what is it about private school parents that were they to send their children to state school these schools will magically improve.
I’m surprised the large number of state school parents on this thread don’t find this patronising - that somehow these brilliant parents can do so much more than they can.
No one has answered though - so maybe they do see rich, private school parents as some sort of superior wonder workers.

I think Eton is usually judged by old etonians…

Every single poster on here saying they are paying to send one or more children to private school but are "not wealthy" and "go without" to do it, still are failing to acknowledge they ARE privileged and wealthy because people who aren't wealthy simply do not have access to that kind of money no matter how much they "scrimp". If you have an average household income or below and rent is eating up half or more of that, then its not a question of running an old car and going without foreign holidays. How is it so hard for such people to accept that they ARE wealthy, by definition, because this is an option for them? If they chose not to do it, they would have a load more money. Whereas the people who have no choice to do it have no way of somehow magicking that money into existence for other purposes.

Also the idea that if you have SEN children private school suddenly becomes a "necessity" is a kick in the teeth for average and below income families with SEN kids they love just as much as you love yours, and would do anything to improve their lot, but who whichever way you slice it are not going to be able to afford this "necessity" on minimum wage jobs.