To think abolishing private schools would cost the tax payer a lot of money?!

[bumblybum]

I am not against the idea at all but there's a few things I don't understand.

How do the dc currently in private schools fit into schools in areas where all the schools are already full?
Would private schools be open to foreign dc only seeing as a lot of students at the private schools are not from the U.K. and use private schools because their company often pays for their fees or would foreign dc also be forced into state schools?
What about boarding schools for forces parents? Are there enough state boarding schools?

Do grammar schools also need deconstructing as well in order for all education to be 'fair'? I live in a grammar area and you can forget buying a house in one of the school catchment areas unless you're already a lot wealthier. Is that not a similar problem? One school has 2% of pupils eligible for pupil premium for example.

Just wondering how it would work. Do state teachers want this to happen? Many move over to private schools so I suppose if many private schools shut down it would stop some choice in where to work.

Would state schools attempt to reach the standard of facilities that private schools have or would we accept that it is better that all British dc have the 'same' even if it's worse vs some having better facilities simply down to money.
Just Monday morning day dreaming about this really!

@L1ttledrummergirl I don't think Kier starmer hates strivers so by the looks of that thread it's not the same angle?

Should I not start a thread asking my own questions?

For those saying that Labour don’t want to abolish private schools, this has indeed been suggested over the years and is still supported by many in the Labour Party.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-private-school-abolish-eton-vote-conference-corbyn-education-policy-a9115766.html?amp

I’m not entirely sure how abolishing private schools, or even taxing them more, will improve the state system. “Outstanding” secondary schools would be inundated with applicants, making the catchment area tiny and pushing the house prices beyond the reach of the majority of parents. Parents who would have been able to secure a place at those schools would no longer be able to do so because the schools would be full of people who would otherwise have been in the private sector.

To make it a truly “fair” system, you would have to abolish the grammar system entirely (it’s now heavily used by those who can afford private tuition), and introduce a lottery system for state schools. I’m fairly sure that if the Labour politicians’ children were allocated a place at a failing secondary they’d rethink their policy.

Whilst they are at it, they should probably have a look at faith schools; schools which are heavily funded by the state which can openly discriminate in their admissions policy. That’s not “fair” either.

In reality, it’s not as simple as removing charitable status to impost VAT on fees anyway. Plenty of independent schools aren’t charities at the moment, but don’t have to charge VAT because of existing VAT legislation; the same legislation which means that private nurseries and universities don’t have to charge VAT either.

Labour will pledge to abolish private schools if it wins the next election, after the party’s annual conference voted for a proposal to “integrate” them into the state sector.

This was the first sentence in the article Another 76543 has linked in his/her post above.

According to the government's own webpage, education and training are exempt from VAT. I'm not sure how you can single private schools out as needing to pay VAT but not other forms of education and training.

I love the idea that abolishing VAT for private schools is going to make Labour unelectable, do you seriously think the vast majority of voters give a teeny tiny shit that Eton, Marlborough etc might have to pay some tax? Give over

Crispy turtle who has said putting VAT on private schools will make Labour unelectable?

I am terrified of this happening. I teach performing arts in private schools and if the fees go up by 20% almost none will be able to afford my lessons. So I’ll be out of work.

By no means are all the parents rich, many of them are really stretching themselves to send their children to these schools, which really aren’t necessarily that fancy or exclusive. I’d guess fees would become unaffordable for at least 50% who would need to go into the state sector. The local schools would buckle, there isn’t the capacity because the moronic local authority has failed to monitor the demographic changes adequately and provide enough school places. It’s all very well saying ‘yes but it would mean state schools improve’ and this might even happen over time but what will happen for at least the first generation is that the quiet, studious kids will get lost, even more so in the vastly bigger year groups.

I have several pupils who have absolutely been drowned in the state sector and have picked up on this-they are terrified of having to go back. All three of my schools operate a bursary system so less wealthy families have opportunities. One of my students’ mum is a cleaner, for example. All of them offer local state schools use of their facilities. So there would be that loss also as they wouldn’t be obliged to do so if their charitable status were removed. A much, much better idea would be to force the private establishments to increase their bursary offering, widen access to their facilities and extracurricular activities and offer holiday schemes. Careers advice and University interview/personal statement coaching. Make them earn their charitable status.

This is a policy driven by class envy from people who were quite happy to use the private/grammar system themselves. Not every school is Eton or Rodean, many are small, family run establishments that would go under (and are already struggling due to heating and food bills skyrocketing) This policy would deprive people of choice in a sector that contributes many billions to the public purse and relieves the pressure on the state system. And what about the people who can’t afford a house in the catchment of the decent schools? The local school to us has just been rated Outstanding and house prices have jumped by 60k+ in that catchment, which has shrunk to 200 meters. We might well have to send our DC to the local private school as the other one near us is an absolute sink-we don’t stand a hope of doing that if the fees go up by 20%. Also worth mentioning that parents have already been taxed, often 40% but aren’t burdening the state system.

This is a poorly thought out vote catcher with no real plan for the consequences and no fucking way am I voting for it.

Exactly. However, presumably all those calling for VAT school fees would also be happy to pay VAT on their private nursery fees and university tuition fees. I suspect in reality that these people are happy with the idea of VAT until it affects them, at which point they’ll claim that they should be exempt because “it’s different”.

@MintJulia
That would indeed be wonderful to have an impartial review. However it seems that politics is not about facts and figures but simply about slagging off the other side.

@Andante57 @Crispyturtle

Here - page 1.

62% of voters support Labour's policy according to Redfield pollsters.

If they remove charitable status from private schools then they should also change the rules for faith schools. A reduction in private schools is not going to change educational provision across the country to a level which we all think is good. We will end up with a two tier state provision, and that what will be done to ‘even’ it up?
However, I for one will continue to pay for my child to attend private school because our local comprehensive is terrible but we can’t afford to move to an area with an outstanding state school.

I certainly don't think charging vat on private schools will work Labour getting in and thanks to those confirming about their desire to abolish private schools I did think that was the case but clearly have no idea what's going on. That's why I'm wondering how this will help make things more fair for all. I went to state school and my sister went to a private school. We suited our respective schools and my parents had different needs for us as well as different needs requiring my sister to go to a private school and me not to.

I genuinely cannot see the good that can come of pricing out the less wealthy current private school students out of these schools or abolishing them entirely.

I also can't envision the impact on current standards of schooling when these students join the state sector. I keep seeing people squabbling about how 'wealthy dc should never have an advantage' vs a real discussion as to this is how it will help.

I'm more interested in the impact on the state sector. I am not seeing the positives. I cannot see how the fee payers will suddenly pour their money into state schools. Unless attending state schools will be means tested or something. But as I said, I can't see it. Maybe someone else knows more than me hence my thread.

I agree with you and sadly there are many who like it as in pp

But at least they'll get the warm feeling inside that "the rich got screwed", I'm sure it'll be a great comfort to them.

It will indeed bring enormous pleasure.

It’ll bring very little benefit, likely detrimental but a policy capitalising on envy etc

Private schools already pay VAT but they don’t charge VAT on fees. Labours policy is to make parents pay VAT on fees . This has nothing to do with charitable status

If I actually believed that the removal of charitable status and charging VAT on private schools plus the abolition of the house of lords would not only be labour party policy but actually this time enacted then I would vote for them. I have never in 60+ years voted Labour but this would get my vote. the priviledge ceiling has been in place way, way too long. the removal of grammar schools was a massive mistake and the perpetuation of these other 2 systems just reinforces the whole thing. Now if they also said they would abolish the monarchy as well then I would not only vote for them but go out and actively campaign!!

Where the government is already paying for those colleges and schools it does make sense to fund by VAT exemption rather than charge VAT but fund more to pay VAT as otherwise you are adding to administrative burden.

It's not all about money. Generally speaking, parents who pay for their children's education are interested and support their child.
This is not the case with many parents of state school children.

If you read the threads on here about 'my child has been suspended,' or the threads about 'my child shouldn't get a detention/ isolation for this,' or about primary children hitting and kicking, ask yourself how many of these children are in private schools. I would guess none.

Among criteria such as smaller classes, parents are paying for an education which is not hampered by disruption.

On the financial side, parents of private school children are still paying taxes, therefore indirectly paying for state education.

All schools and staff remain. All schools work on state school basis. Children apply to go to school within their catchment area which will mean former private schools and existing schools. That's the principle I think.

Do you mean the state acquires property? How does it work in reality

What about the monopoly the state would have on teachers options? Is that an issue?

No, it isn't.

I obviously don't have the numbers but all training and education are VAT exempt. I suspect but can't prove a few state schools are just a small number of the institutions which fall into this bracket. I think it's a principle that they should not have VAT charged rather than a way to make VAT easier for government.

@MarshaBradyo would the state buy the land? The two private schools that shut in my area were developed into flats.

No extra school places but a lot more dc. Maybe Labour will create more state schools to facilitate the extra dc needing them? Not sure how it will be funded though.

@SleeplessInEngland why is it not an issue? Thanks

Not everyone attending private schools pay. My friend got a scholarship to one that only takes deaf pupils. A portion of the fees charged to those who paid went on helping her get an education that would not have been possible in the late 70's/early 80's. The school still provides scholarships now meaning the tax payer is not liable for the extra funding those children need if they go to state school and also, those children aren't at risk of bullying because they are "different". My friend has a high income job now and is paying for hr deaf GC to attend as a day pupil.

How can I prove a negative?