If you didn’t go to a private school, what do you think about those who did?

[hanginds]

Do you feel they had an unfair advantage? Do you care? Do you think they don’t know about the real world?

I really struggle to connect with colleagues who were privately educated as they seem almost entitled to the job. They seem fearless about finding alternative work if needs be, yet I just don’t have that confidence. I assume it’s their background as it’s the only difference between us in the academic/work context.

Exactly. School outcomes are about so much more that the wealth of parents. The school which another poster mentioned, run by Katharine Birbalsingh, has amazing outcomes for children, despite having an above average rate of deprived pupils. Taxing private schools and throwing more money at the state sector is not going to solve the problem of under performing schools. It’s about the ethos and values of the teachers and parents as much as anything. The school I mentioned has better outcomes than many private schools, which only goes to show that wealth is not always the answer as to why some schools do better than others.

Oh, if the idea was BANNING private schools then yes, the super rich would find ways round it through private tutoring and overseas boarding etc. (Fortunately, there is no way this would ever happen!)

Mixture of a bit of resentment with a lot of pity for them. It seems like private schools and the parents put a ton of pressure on their kids to achieve.

Fortunately, there is no way this would ever happen!

User1477 Okay so charitable status is removed and VAT added to fees. Do you think those anti private schools will accept those concessions and drop any further opposition?
I doubt it somehow - they’ll say ‘VAT and charitable status are done and dusted; now let’s put abolition in our sights’.

I don't believe for a second that if private schools were abolished that all the parents would start sending their children abroad to board, a tiny percentage might, but if they did I guess at least it would take the pressure off absorbing them all into the state system.
It will never happen anyway, it's too big a think for any government to take on.

Some think she’s amazing, some think she’s awful, but she definitely gets results!

Saying “You can have private schools if you like, just remember that if you are business then you need to act like one and pay taxes” is the kind of thing most UK people are OK with.

Banning private schools altogether is pretty different and goes against ideas that are widely held in the UK, like “People have the right to do things as long as they don’t expect other people to pay for them to do it or expect special status or help from the state.”

Nurseries are also businesses. Presumably these same people would also be happy for VAT to be added on those fees. In fact, that might be a good idea. Given how many children attend nurseries before the age of 5 (a far higher percentage than those attending private school) it would raise a lot of money which could be put into the state education system. I suspect, however, that the people saying that private schools are businesses and should be taxed accordingly will come up with some spurious reason as to why nurseries shouldn’t be treated the same, because they appear less keen on increasing taxes when it actually effects them.

Nurseries probably get exempted for the same reasons that children’s clothes etc. are exempted from VAT - because we make an exemption for things that are essential for ordinary working parents and represent a large cost burden for the poor. Private school’s don’t fit that criteria, other than SEN schools (and I believe that private SEN schools will be exempt if they do bring in SAT).

I went to a really good school, it was approved😀

You’ve just proved my last point. Education is exempt under the VAT legislation. This also includes universities. A lot of “ordinary working people” and “poor” say they can’t afford university either. Should we add VAT to university fees? Let’s be honest, going to university gives people an “unfair” advantage over people who don’t. So let’s add VAT to those as well.

@Another76543
more ridiculous clutching at straws. you are missing the point that private ed is an expensive high-end service that is entirely unnecessary because there is a state option. Nursery and higher ed have no such alternative.
taxing would be a point of principle that is supported by 95% of the population (in fact polls show nearly 50% want it to be abolished entirely even though that is not part of the Labour Party manifesto). The ‘drop in the ocean’ alternative
these pathetic attempts at justification of tax-free status really just prove my point that those with the immense privilege of being able to afford it for their precious children are rapidly losing touch with the real world and are living in their little bubble with a ‘well fuck everyone else’ attitude.
if/when it gets through just suck up the increase. No-one at all (except you) cares about the increasing costs of privilege

I’m not sure why you feel you have to be so aggressive when people offer an alternative opinion. You even say yourself that taxing would be a “point of principle”. That’s what it boils down to. People stamping their feet and saying “it’s not fair”.

As a point of principle, I agree that all children should have access to a fantastic education. It simply is not reality though. Inequality in this country goes far deeper than the small percentage of children privately educated. Perhaps we would do better if people use their efforts to improve equality in other areas of life (housing etc).

I will indeed “suck up” the cost of VAT on fees. Hopefully those disadvantaged families currently using the good state comprehensive and grammar system will also “suck it up” when their children can no longer benefit from that education because some people from the private sector won’t be able to afford the fee increase and will start taking their places in the state sector. They’ll use what they’re saving on current fees to pay for tutors and higher house prices to secure the best state place possible. Those without the funds to pay for tutors and higher house prices will end up being pushed towards less good state schools. I’m not sure that benefits anyone.

Universities are also classed as charities for the same reason as private schools and I suppose technically, given the hefty fees most students have to pay these days they’re just another model of private education (although a very unprofitable one!)

(in fact polls show nearly 50% want it to be abolished entirely even though that is not part of the Labour Party manifesto).

In that case maybe Labour should add abolition to their manifesto - though I guess most people who are opposed to private education probably vote Labour anyway so it wouldn’t attract new voters.
Any posters who’ve canvassed for Labour? Is it something voters ask about?
Maybe Labour aren’t up for the battle right now - as pp have pointed out above, private schools would put up a fight - or maybe they are waiting to get into power before they attempt to abolish it.

in fact polls show nearly 50% want it to be abolished entirely even though that is not part of the Labour Party manifesto

so over half don't.

The idea that the Labour Party will do anything to screw over private schools is laughable. Most of them send their kids to them.

They will. Vote the other way if you want to keep protecting privilege.

I highly doubt it. Private schools (including ours) do a number of things to protect charitable status (community projects, funding shared sports facilities, fully funded places to name a few) so even if labour decided to go for private schools (despite the fact that many, many labour MPs use private schools), there would be real, hard-to-shift legal barriers in their way.

The fact that you say they “do things to protect charitable status” shows that their motives are not charitable, which is a large part of what the issue is. Is it really charity if it is done for selfish reasons?

It’s easy to make a pledge in a manifesto, but another thing entirely to carry it out. Similarly, they may attempt to do it, but that doesn’t mean they will succeed.

As a general rule, it’s always best to save the crowing until your aims have been achieved and the matter concluded, lest you end up eating crow.

Quite.

I've noticed that middle class types get their kids into grammars and religious schools, so that's what the rich ones would do if private schools were abolished.

Keir Starmer bought his kids into an excellent state school where the houses in the tiny catchment cost upwards of £2 million.

Keir Starmer bought his kids into an excellent state school where the houses in the tiny catchment cost upwards of £2 million.

There you go then. Often people who use religious schools and grammars also think they have the moral high ground over the ones who pay. I know a couple of people like this, and they could have afforded to pay (and would have if the kids hadn't got in one of these middle class enclave schools)