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 find this comment absolutely hilarious. 🤣 Thank you for brightening my day with your brilliant insight.

I have been fortunate enough to be able to send my dc to very good state schools, but I have certainly contributed my my time and professional skills as a school governor for many years, and I will continue to do so. So yes, I think I probably have made a difference in some ways.

If you think that educated, motivated parents can't make a huge difference to state schools, then you are very mistaken. The school where I am a governor is lucky enough to have a lot of highly skilled parents who care deeply about education and really want to contribute - through the governing body, through the PTA, in various voluntary capacities etc. They share contacts and expertise, help the school to raise funds, help to offer enrichment opportunities etc. Don't underestimate the impact that all of that has.

Of course, not all schools are lucky enough to have that level of parental input, and that's partly what creates the many inequalities within the state sector. The school where I'm a governor is now teaming up with another local school to explore how we could potentially share some of these advantages.

From the Office of National Statistics: -

For the UK, average weekly earnings were estimated at £611 for total pay in June 2022.

This equates to £31,772 per year.

I don't actually hate private schools at all, though I think they're rarely worth the high fees and I have a pretty dim view of some of them.

I don't think you should be ashamed of wanting to pay for smaller classes, more activities or nicer surroundings in the slightest. Totally fair enough if you can afford it and you're happy with what you're getting. My point is merely that smaller classes, more activities and nicer surroundings are a luxury, and as such, they should be taxed like any other luxury.

Because their children, given better nutrition, support, equipment, tutoring, etc, will get better grades, and therefore up the achievement of the school. Richer parents generally have more ability to help out - donate money, equipment, time etc.

Plus more subtle differences, but hugely importantly: at base, richer people are more confident. They have the assurance of security, and the lack of a million tiny cuts that people in poverty are hampered by.

(I'm basing this on having worked in various schools, in both very affluent areas and hugely deprived areas. The differences are staggering. Health, confidence, behaviour, which all impacts on ability and attainment.)

I think it is not so much vitriol as incredulity at what seems to be your absolute lack of awareness that there are much bigger issues at play at the moment in this country than whether people like you can find an extra 20% for your private school fees. It also seems that your interest in politics only extends to that which directly affects you. Your jokes about starving children are really off, when that is the reality facing some this winter. I'm done.

Great. More upper middle-class, aspirational students using the state system will be better for social mobility.

Don't believe it. Tabitha and Tarquin aren't going to end up in a failing inner-city comp, trust me.

If you think that educated, motivated parents can't make a huge difference to state schools, then you are very mistaken
Of course, not all schools are lucky enough to have that level of parental input, and that's partly what creates the many inequalities within the state sector.

MrsBennet Then what is the solution to inequalities within the state sector? All these influential parents coming from private schools to state schools would, you say, be able to make a difference, but they are unlikely to send their children to the failing schools.
It sounds to me that there’s just as much unfairness within the state sector as there is between private schools and state schools.

Absolutely this.
Then house prices will shoot up even more around these schools and there will be a greater economic/social divide within the state sector in lieu of the private v state divide.
Then there will be a clamour to add a “catchment area tax” to limit the middle class’ spending to buy privilege.
Problem is that whatever anyone does, there will always be this divide.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely a lot of unfairness within the state system. I don't honestly know what the best approach is to tackling this. I believe that Brighton experimented for a while with some sort of lottery system that sought to prevent people from buying their way into the "good" catchments, but I've no idea how well it worked in reality, or whether it just resulted in a lot of kids having to travel across the city to get to school. It would be interesting to know more.

There are a lot of initiatives within the state sector at the moment around successful state schools trying to support less successful ones, and there is a huge amount of work going on around this in my area right now... not least because schools are trying to resist pressure to join big multi academy trusts. That includes sharing some of the "parent resources" more fairly, and so far, a lot of parents have seemed very open to this approach.

There are no easy answers, though. Pupil premium funding was meant to help address some of the inequalities, and it does help, but just chucking money at it isn't a magic bullet either.

And yes, you're right that parents moving their kids from private schools will not want to send their kids to failing state schools instead, but the more supportive, pro-education parents are using the state sector, the more they will have to be spread out throughout the system - the highest performing schools are all full already, so those moving from the private sector will either find that they can't get into the most sought after schools (and therefore take their skills and support elsewhere) or they will be in the right year group to be able to secure a place, in which case they will probably end up pushing other kids with supportive pro-education parents out to less successful schools, and those parents will take their skills and support to the new schools instead.

There is already effectively a catchment area tax in the form of stamp duty.

In that children at private schools are saving society a vast amount of money by not attending state schools, making it harder for those families is surely counter-productive...

OP, I agree that people should try and respond to the original post so I'm doing that.

I don't want to be unkind but you really need to get some perspective. I have a child in a private school and we're far from rolling in it and sacrifices are made to do it, but adding VAT to the fees is hardly unfair given it is something you chose to do. It IS a luxury and one that most cannot afford. Be grateful that you're in a position to have a choice.

The tone of some messages here of the type "I'm saving the state £££ by sending my child to private school" are so distasteful. Really? Was that your motive for going private?

State education is not a luxury, it's a basic right.

Here’s a study commissioned by the ISC when the Labour policy was announced.

www.isc.co.uk/media/5926/isc-vat-full-report-1018-for-circulation.pdf

I’m just not sure what benefit adding VAT does to school fees. They estimate 54,000 children would immediately have to move into the state sector as it would be unaffordable. Where do they all go? In some areas there are already huge shortages. New classrooms and schools would need to be built. There is then the cost per child the government pays to the schools. They work out that the cost to the government is £10k per child.

Overall, the cost to the government is estimated in the region of £1.3bn.

Who pays for this?

I think there should be a lower rate of VAT applied (5%) but whacking fees up by 20% would affect the education of every child through bigger class sizes. The most expensive schools won’t suffer as much as the parents are rich enough to absorb it.

You ok hun?

It's not like I get a discount on my taxes for not smoking

Don't you? I don't smoke, so I don't have to pay tobacco duties.

@Popgoestheweaselagain

This has only just occurred to me but specifically having to pay VAT should not mean they need to uplift fees by 20%

As if you are registered for VAT you can also claim back VAT on purchases (which you can't otherwise)

So their net cost increase should be less than 20%. Not nothing though because you don't pay VAT on salaries.

Up to recently VAT was applied to tampons as they were seen as a luxury so why not private education?
That being said I have no problem with private education and would probably send any kids I had to private schools if I was able to afford it.

I’m ideologically opposed to private (or religious) schools…. And am sadly childless. However, I work in the education system, and would put all of the money into better state schools. Then everyone would be given (in theory) a similar start, and people wouldn’t be able to buy their way into university/jobs. (It would still happen, I know, but I suppose it would be more obvious?!)
Im surprised that private school fees don’t already carry VAT. They are, in my opinion, a luxury…..

I'm not unaware at all. That just wasn't the point of the thread! I didn't even vote Tory in the last election - there are other parties, you know. But, at the moment, it would be shooting myself in the foot to vote in a Labour government because of this issue, and I'm not convinced would be of much help to state schools anyway - as many posters have tried to explain in this thread. Just being honest. I also just wasn't in the mood to join in the Tory bashing and getting the thread even more off topic. I'm not a big fan of either party. If you think that makes me personally responsible for starving children, then I think that shows your own lack of connection to reality. The place I gave up at my local school went to another child who can get free school meals and a great education. Why take up the free place if I can afford to pay? I don't think this is the easy question people are making it out to be.

But every single child has the right to that place and that free school meal....

Actually, no. I was irratated by the attempt to turn this into a Tory bashing thread, so was being a bit contrary. Wasn't my best moment. There are other parties out there guys!

What do you mean? There are a limited number of places at this particular very sought after school. If I sent my child there it would be to save myself some money. I'm not the kind of high-energy person that would have contributed a lot to the school.

Anyway, the point of the thread wasn't whether we should have private schools, which, as I say, I understand some people are ideologically opposed to. It also wasn't whether the Tory mini-budget will successfully get us through the current crisis. The question is, why do people think that this particular group of people (who send their kids to private school) have a lot of extra money to pay in taxes? I think this is a miconception. If the aim is to close down private schools (rather than make extra cash for state schools), then I can it will probably work.😂

I just don't think it's reasonable to shrug and say "life's not fair, so what" for poor kids any more than it was when e.g. public transport was completely inaccessible to the disabled. We have a responsibility to try an break down barriers and level up inequalities. I find it amazing that some people really think life should be a lottery of birth and devil take the hindmost - even when the hindmost are disadvantaged CHILDREN.

But we didn't change the situation by making it harder for able-bodied people to get on, so we were all in the same situation, we improved the situation by making it possible for people in wheelchairs to get on the bus, having assigned seating areas (and enforcing them) etc.

People said the same thing about grammars, that by having a split system we are disadvantaging the less academically able by siloing them in separate schools.

I don't know the solution. I don't think that saying "I can't afford nice things, so you can't have them either" is it though.