To not see how the gov will make any money from taxing private schools?

[AngryHedgehog]

All the other threads seem to have descended into bunfighting over the ethics of the policy, yet I'm not really understanding how this stands to benefit the government as surely they'll be footing the bill for all the kids that move to state schools?

As a disclaimer, I don't have kids and wouldn't be able to afford to privately educate them even if I did, despite earning a half decent salary.

I'm reading that it costs around £7k per pupil per term, so it would take the VAT from around four families to fund each additional child moving to state education.

Given that this may be 4/10 kids in private education moving to state schooling, I don't see how this doesn't create a net loss as there will only be 50% more kids left in private education and there needs to be multiple times that for the VAT increase to foot the bill.

Surely I'm missing something here?

I’m not deliberately misinterpreting you - they’re not comparable situations, the misfortune not to have extra £3k when you’re already in such a fortunate position is wildly different to the misfortune of not being able to afford food. There will be people who can’t afford to own their own home or go on holiday who struggle to have sympathy for someone who has to sacrifice with smaller homes or UK breaks to pay for private school.

The gloating is wrong I agree - there will be some parents like yourself worried about it. But let’s face it, at £18k year even if the school passes on the full 20%, that’s £3.6k a year. 98% of parents paying £18k can absorb that. The whole idea that most parents are scrimping and saving and not going on holiday is at odds with my personal experience. Obviously it happens but IME it’s the minority, so the amount of people who will be severely impacted by this is relatively few compared to the amount who would be impacted by, say income tax increases. It must feel very unfair if you’re one of the few who will be really impacted but that’s life sadly.

I do hope your child is able to stay at their school and they don’t pass the full 20% onto you.

I get it OP, overall it’s going to cost money. No idea why Labour are doing this, Keir Starmer knows it’s just a voter winner sadly. Silly man.

Also - for all the catastrophising - I briefly pondered sending DD private but I can’t get a place for any in our area as they’re all full, even with these proposed policies. Really can’t see thousands of schools closing as a poster said on another thread!

There would be no gloating if tone deaf parents weren’t bleating about how stupid and unfair it is.

And it isn’t gloating to say it isn’t something that I feel sorry for privileged parents over anyway!

Honestly 🙄

Whether it’s their choice or not, why is that relevant? They’re doing it to give their children the best start in life. I wasn’t comparing it against other situations. Some kids do absolutely fine in state school. Others don’t. I could never have afforded for my dc to go private, but I have no beef with those who decide to give things up to pay for their child to do so.

neither do I - crack on if you can afford it.

I also would if I we had the cash. We earn around £125k combined and it’s nowhere near enough to pay for two children to go to private and live in the SE.

If they want to give up stuff to pay for a huge purchase fine. But don’t complain if it becomes more expensive due to a ridiculous charitable status loophole being closed

Our school for the first time ever (and another similar school in the close vicinity) has spaces for year 7 in September. These are very academically selective schools which normally run waiting lists and turn lots away. they are no more expensive than other local ones so it’s not as if people have chosen the cheaper option.

so I’m assuming more of those who would otherwise have been at these schools have opted for the state schools nearby (many of which are academically selective).

maybe it is only local to us. But if that is replicated elsewhere, then I really can’t see how it will produce revenue. More worryingly, I think it would cost money - which means less money for the public services this policy is meant to be improving.

the state schools near me are not fully subscribed

One is desperately under subscribed . Could do with more kids = more funding

The birth rates are dropping

@Livelovebehappy

All kids deserve an equal start in life. Whether the parents are bankers or serve a more useful purpose like NHS or driving buses or keeping our streets clean

I know we don’t agree but I am grateful for your sentiment. Thank you.

Sorry but are parents of kids at state school not trying to improve their kids lives?

I really don’t know. All I read on here is that private school parents and their DC are going to improve standards at your schools.

Why aren’t you improving it yourself?

I know they’re saving us all a fortune aren’t they by educating their kids privately and we should all be very grateful!

And be on bended knee for free school meals for KS1 apparently.

They let local state plebs use their science blocks once a month too! Praise be! Charitable status for all and no VAT! Listen up Keir

First of your posts that I agree with!

And in Scotland?

I’m actually glad we are having this debate.

I’m sick and tired of the amount of tax that comes out of my household, and how British people just think high earners are cows that should be milked dead.

Anyway, small victory my end. My tax went up after a small COL pay rise so I adjusted my hours, and adjusted my pension contributions and I’m now paying less tax.

I’m just not prepared to pay more into the pot. I’m sick of it.

Would be boring if we all agreed!

I guess if MPs would be more inclined to ensure state schools were well funded if their kids were there.

But no, I don’t think the very presence of you and your children will improve the school system sorry, the extra money on the other hand might 🤷🏼‍♀️

Why do parents send their children to private schools if there are good state schools around?

Well, ‘good’ is relative.

State schools are generally short on staff, either unable to recruit (hello recruitment crisis) or have significant numbers off on long-term sick. It is far rarer to find supply staff in independent schools than in state ones. If the schools were equivalent you’s expect the same proportions. So there’s clearly a reason for the difference.

I’ve taught in both sectors. Forget the financial status of the parents, that’s irrelevant. What really matters is:

1. Behaviour. Independent schools enforce behaviour policies, state schools rarely do properly because parents often head to the press and complain about ‘draconian rules’. Cue sad faced photo and a £250 interview fee with the local press.

2. Spend per pupil. This one is down to governmental policy. £7k per pupil isn’t a lot when you consider this has to cover staffing costs, supplies, building maintenance and insurance. State school teachers are familiar with ‘order in April’ because the budget is extremely limited. In the private sector if you want to order a set of fossils to show your class, go ahead and order them. State schools look at photos online. Unless you request around April…

3. Class sizes. State sector classes of 30+ are common. For an hour long lesson with 10 mins introduction and 5 mins plenary that’s 45 mins of time to get round whole class doing independent work and check they’re on track. Fingers crossed most are because then you can speed by them to help those who are struggling. Divided equally that’s a maximum of only 1.5mins per pupil. Independent sector classes of 15-20 are not unusual. You do the maths.

4. Parental support. This is a HUGE part of the success of independent schools. That’s not to say that the parents of state school pupils don’t value education, many of them do. But those parents who don’t think education is important and who tell their kids they don’t have to listen to the teacher if they don’t want to, well, they’re not going to spend on private fees if that’s their attitude, are they?

5. Tolerance of problem children. Linked to 1 and 4, Independent schools can expel unruly, disruptive or violent children. They have a reputation to maintain and if parents complain that they will remove their children from Year 2 because Tarquin keeps kicking out, then little Tarquin will likely find himself out on his ear. In comparison, it is extremely difficult to remove problem children from state schools. The school has a responsibility to provide education for the children on roll, and there are penalties if pupils are denied access to a school. Better to employ a TA as extra support and sit Tarquin next to a well-behaved girl to try to get him to follow her example and become a decent person. Rotate the girl every term or half-term so there’s less chance of one getting a blood clot from repeatedly being kicked in the shins.

As others have said, this policy won’t actually raise much money, so the guff about ‘fairness’ in using tax revenue to bolster state education is a soundbite, not a rational claim.

Over 90% of children in the UK go to state schools. If the will was there to improve state education it would already have happened. But it hasn’t. This isn’t about money, it’s about attitude.

One state funded school who has tried to replicate the independent model is Michaela in Brent, headed by Katherine Birbalsingh.

A quick Google will show you how much hate she has received for trying to give poor inner city children the same breadth of education that their wealthier contemporaries receive.

Frequently the argument is ‘poor kids can’t do that’. Well, why? If their parents suddenly won the lottery would they magically be able to achieve more? Conversely if wealthy families suddenly lost everything would their children immediately think it acceptable to tell the teachers to f*uck off?

No. Because the difference between state school pupils and independent school pupils is NOT the level of parental income.

The reason there is a divide in the educational outcomes of the two is not something Starmer can fix by making independent schools unaffordable for most.

Parents who support their children do so irrespective of their income. If they can’t afford to send their children to private school they pay for tutoring or sit down with their own kids and help them with homework when they struggle. They take an interest in their children and the education they receive.

Parents who don’t care, who can’t be bothered to potty train their children before starting school, who don’t sit and read with them, who think it’s reasonable for children to answer back to the teacher, who think uniform rules are for other people, who don’t turn up for parents evenings, who frankly couldn’t give a sh!t about their own kids or their education, does anyone really think they’ll have a damascene conversion and suddenly become educational cheerleaders the moment state schools are subject to VAT?

Really?

Anyone?

Because forcing private school pupils into the state sector overnight isn’t magically going to improve the educational outcome of those already in those state schools. How could it?

But then again, money - or the lack of it - isn’t the real problem.

The problem is people.

It's not about making money
It's about closing a loop hole and levelling the playing field.
And the idea is not for families to suddenly switch from one to the other. It won't be anywhere near 4/10 at least for several years.

It's simply unfair that private education as a luxury service most cannot afford is not taxed.
Not everything is about "making money"....which is really the difference between capitalism and socialism !

Any movement from private to state school will overall increase standards in state schools. If there is sufficient movement to mean fewer teaching jobs in private those teachers could end up back in state schools.

Of course they do. But that's not the reality. And why should we say because one family can't afford private education, that another family who can shouldnt have that choice. And tbh a lot of children thrive and progress to great careers through attending state school. Not attending private school doesnt mean a child can't achieve great things. My dd went to state school and has a very successful career. Son fell in with a not so great crowd at secondary school who couldn't be arsed with studying and he lost his way for a while. Okay with a job now. Although not one I would have chosen for him. But who knows whether things would have been different for him at a private school.

Thank you - this is exactly how I feel and what I hear from teacher friends. And if more teachers are trained, then a large proportion will leave within a few years.

For goodness sake. Would one of the posters who keeps telling us children with SEN and EHCPs and Section 41 schools are exempt please explain how this applies to ASN children in SCOTLAND.

This is a national tax that must be applied equally across the UK. How does that happen if it relies on different devolved legislation?!!

If it doesn’t make money does that mean the extra 6500 teachers are a no go?

How will the movement improve standards in state schools? As a governor at a private school I am pretty certain most of our teachers would look to alternative careers or retire rather than move to state, if we were forced to close or downsize.

@FTPM1980 ”If there is sufficient movement to mean fewer teaching jobs in private those teachers could end up back in state schools.“

They won’t.
They’ll go into private tutoring.

If they wanted to teach in the state sector they would already be doing so.