Do you think labour will actually implement 20% vat on school fees?

[labpit]

We have two in Year 7 and year 10 and I am not sure what we will do if this happens. It is a certainty do you think?

It is often said that standards will rise in state schools if the middle-class private sector parents move their children there. I am interested in exactly how this will happen?

We are a (well-paid) public sector couple who just about managed to send our kids private. We were, of course lucky and privileged to be able to do that. However, we would be one of the parents that would have to move out of the private sector should the VAT policy be implemented. Our kids have just left school so this is an academic discussion.

We would then send our kids to the local state school. We would support them at home and support the school by attending events and engaging with parents’ evenings etc. The kids would do their homework, be respectful at school and generally be well-behaved and hard-working. Like most current state school kids. They would probably do well in the public exams. Is that what people mean by ‘raising standards’? That they would come out with good grades at GCSE and A
level? But that is not really about raising the standards of the school, is it?

We would not be able to donate money for a new library. We would not be able to solve the teacher recruitment crisis. We could not improve teachers’ conditions other than having reasonably well-behaved kids? We are pretty ordinary and definitely not ‘influential’ or special in any way. We are not ‘sharp-elbowed’ or inclined to make demands of a school.

It is quite flattering to think that by moving my kids from private to state I would be making the state school ‘better’ as it often quoted. However, I am struggling to see exactly how I would be doing this. I am probably missing something though?

Why are you just repeating phrases I have used?

For the final time for those at the back - the poster did not say that. It's foolish to make assumptions. You can't possibly know what they thought at the time unless you are the same poster with different accounts.

They posted about managing to pay for childcare and myself and others pointed out that many don't. It's simply an objective fact so I don't understand why anyone would take issue with it.

Your response is utterly bizarre and illogical. Happy to leave you to it as I refuse to get drawn in further to such silliness.

I’m really pleased for all those posters who went to/live near a good state school.

The state secondary I went to (now closed down) was round the corner from where the fatal stabbing of 2 boys occurred in Bristol over the weekend.

The state secondary we live in catchment for - last week a video was being circulated amongst pupils of two 12 year olds having sex on the school grounds. The police have been involved.

You’re damn right I’m going to do everything in my power to avoid sending my kids to that school, or have an experience like I did growing up. I won’t be made to feel guilty for doing it.

We are in the very fortunate position via savings and an inheritance that means we will be able to send our DC to the local small private secondary. We could not afford to pay out of our monthly income.

I’ve never understood this either. I’m not sure what people think that the 7% of private school parents can do that the other 93% can’t. Why can private school parents magically improve state schools when state school parents can’t?

I don’t think a lot of people realise how bad some of the state alternatives actually are. A lot of them live in privileged bubbles where the state alternatives are good. There are vast swathes of the country where the state system is dire, and failing children.

I understand that and feel very lucky. People are paying through house prices there is no moral superiority attached to that imo

Which is another reason this policy irritates me, it’s just so vengeful

I agree with this, in fact I think rather than raising standards it would just bring others down.

Children who just get on with their work cause no trouble often just don't get a look in so may in actual suffer and achieve less 🤷‍♀️

It’s bizarre and illogical to say that people using UC to fund nursery are paying for it. They clearly are not. No one with any sense would argue that those people could pay for private school and the original poster clearly didn’t mean that they could. They were talking about people who find it themselves, just like many people do. I funded two years for each of my children with zero support from the taxpayer. I know plenty of others who did the same.

I think that’s what I struggle to understand. There is privilege throughout life and society, and yet people’s focus seems to be on punishing the privilege of private education. No one is suggesting taxing the privilege of being able to afford tutors, lots of books, foreign trips, high house prices in decent catchments, deposits for children’s houses etc. They seem happy for multi millionaires to use the state education system and funding, but are happy to tax families scrimping to pay fees for a child who has been failed by the state.

I truly truly hope they don't - or they find a loop hole whereby private schools that share facilities wi the the community / state aren't forced to do something that will negatively impact so many families

I’ve never understood this either. I’m not sure what people think that the 7% of private school parents can do that the other 93% can’t. Why can private school parents magically improve state schools when state school parents can’t?

I don’t understand it either. I also don’t understand why all the many state school parents on these threads don’t object to those who claim private school parents are some sort of ubermensch who can do something they’re not doing.
Also, since many posters on here regard private school pupils as snobbish and stupid, why do they want their parents having anything to do with the schools.
I think what they do quite look forward to is that once these snooty children arrive at state schools, they will be repeatedly told how ghastly and posh they are.

I dont think the idea is your child as an individual improves the standard at the school by their presence.

I think the idea is that as a cohort more judges, politicians, journalists, party donars, whitehall etc are privately educated and use private school. So the press, judiciary, policy makers etc are less incentivised to agitate for improvements or even have experience of what might need to be improved. Even the lefty guardian bangs on and on about oxbridge are rarely ventures into further education funding for instance.

I cant really work out if this is true or not.

I certainly dont think vat on fees will impact on this though. I dont think the movers and shakers will be priced out.

I think the idea is that as a cohort more judges, politicians, journalists, party donars, whitehall etc are privately educated and use private school. So the press, judiciary, policy makers etc are less incentivised to agitate for improvements or even have experience of what might need to be improved.

Spendonsend - Maybe, but there are also plenty of these people who don’t use private schools. Look at all the posters on here boasting about how they’re rich but because they are decent people with morals, they send their children to state school.
Why aren’t they improving the schools?

Maybe they are! Maybe they would be even more dire if Anne the judge and Peter the head of whatever at Whitehall wasnt quitely asking questions at the Education Select Committee.

If people can no longer afford private schools, all that will happen is that they will move to an area with excellent schools driving the house prices up. They are never going to go to an awful school, but some kids who were just in the catchment of an excellent school may suddenly find that they aren't any more and their life chances are significantly reduced. It's not really a win win for anybody.

‘I think the idea is that as a cohort more judges, politicians, journalists, party donars, whitehall etc are privately educated and use private school.’

The thing is, I expect most of these people would be able to stump up the extra cash, if their kids are at private already.

I would have loved to be in a catchment of a great state school. But could not afford the huge London mortgage needed.

The wealthy will still go private as private schools are not being abolished. Except private schools will be the preserve of the even more super-wealthy. So not much will change, though maybe some people will feel better temporarily. Inequality won’t change.

All this is just a distraction from the hell that is inadequate state school funding.

They will probably need to. When parents are struggling to keep their chold in a school because they have had a massive price hike, how happy will they be paying for other children?

The wealthy will still go private as private schools are not being abolished. Except private schools will be the preserve of the even more super-wealthy.

I agree with this - and I thought it was the Etons and Harrows of this world that those who are anti private schools really hated.
Maybe the Labour Party thinks everyone who has children at elite private schools are non-doms so abolishing those will affect parents’ ability to pay.

But if they are already in school moving to an area with excellent schools won't necessarily get them a place. All the good schools where I live are full with long waiting lists for every year group.

100% this!

Sorry was trying to quote this

Labour have been clear VAT going on school fees in first budget.Most schools are likely to try and reduce fees though so it won’t be a 20% increase to parents. They will be able to claim the vat back on things like capital projects and so reduce fees. So for example if a school can reduce their fees by 5% the actual increase to parents will be 14%, if they can get them down 10% the increase is only 8%. This favours the big public schools though who tend to have more money for big projects. Labour are working on the basis numbers won’t drop and they need the vat. They are almost certainly right private school numbers have stayed relatively constant despite recessions and fees rising dramatically over last 10 years.

They’ll struggle through until the next natural breakpoint in most cases I think (ages 4/11/16). So, at 11, they will go state rather than private they were planning. They might switch to state sixth form. So, competition for popular state schools will increase at natural entry points.

The state schools in London are among the best in the country.

In other areas, people don't have choices about state schooling and catchment areas are huge. Our dc went to an outstanding school, and received brilliant teaching. However, if for some reason we'd wanted them to go elsewhere,it wouldn't have been possible as the next nearest school was 10 miles away and no public transport to get them there. The school had a very mixed intake including from a village which had the cheapest housing in the area and the highest %age of FSM.

Our DC are now adults and we've moved to a small town where there is one State secondary school and a private boarding school. The secondary school is rated Outstanding and takes all the children that live locally, including from the "rougher" estates and the cheaper nearby villages.

As far as I can see,the behaviour of the teens from.both schools is pretty good.

If some people decide to switch from private to state and buy houses nearby, I don't think that would push up house prices. There are all sorts of factors at play. I think the argument about pushing house prices up might apply in cities, but not in more rural areas.