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?

True - maybe some degrees are essential for the job (for example, medicine) but an awful lot aren't essential any more (or ever have been).

Agreed. The average trade salary is now £10k above the average graduate salary so it's hardly necessary to earn a decent wage - more just a preference. And if you want to do a nonsense degree like Gender Studies you should foot the bill yourself imo. 🤣

In many cases I think university education is more unnecessary than private education. The latter is just a different way to achieve a necessary objective (schooling) but how many so called 'graduate jobs' really honestly need a graduate?

I went into a graduate job after uni but would've been far better off with three years experience in that actual sector than three years experience in drinking and smoking weed lol.

You’d surely need an EHCP to be in a special school.

Presumably that was some time ago.

If funded by the local authority.

Not a private school. You need formal diagnoses, but not an EHCP. I really think you should stop making assumptions about things you clearly know nothing about.

So who is funding the fees you or the local authority?

EHCPs don’t exist in Scotland, Wales or NI so no Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish child (ie those living in those parts of the UK) would have one even if they attend a specialist school in England.

The differing standards are relatable nowadays. I work in a lovely state school, it is the school of choice for a lot of parents, behaviour is pretty good. For the most part the kids mean well and are engaged in the work. But what they are doing at each level is way behind what is going on at the equivalent level in my DD‘s private. And then there are the states near me where attacks on staff and classroom evacuations are the daily norm. So those kids will be left trailing even further behind, through no fault of the teachers (or kids, most of whom are just trying to get on and others of whom have only ever known violence or a total lack of respect for authority and therefore know no different…)

Of course there are also states that are working at the same level of the privates. My other two kids are in one. And the demographic and attitude towards education of the parents is almost exactly the same as the demographic at the private.

All state schools follow the same curriculum.

Do you have any experience of working in schools? They might all follow it. They certainly don’t all meet the same standards. By any stretch of the imagination.

Yes I do. What do you mean by “standards”?

@Uplift state schools don't have to follow the same curriculum. Academy Trusts can have their own curriculum

In that case I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. Ability of children to read confidently, comprehend text, add, multiply, [insert standard here] at the end of [insert stage here].

@Uplift what is your role in school?

Pupils in academies study the same core subjects and do the same exams as those in any other school, but unlike schools managed by the local authority, academies can choose to adapt the curriculum. They have the same expectations as regards standards.

So they don't have to follow the same curriculum

It still applies. My niece is at a private school. . Her brother's girlfriend attends the local state. They are both in year 9 but my niece has covered the work 18 months ago that friend is doing now.

We do, which is why we don't need an EHCP.

I agree about the university fees concern. Once you start taxing education, it opens the gates. University education used to be funded. I'm 39 and had to pay uni fees. Other parents at my children's schools a little older than me - mid to late 40s - had it funded. Uni now is much more expensive than it was for me 20 odd years ago in 2003. Give it time, uni will be taxed as well. This is just the start.

I also don't understand the train of thought that private school parents will raise the standards. As if we have any influence in what happens in school.

My ds is in state but moving to private in September. The behaviour in his school is awful, he has 6 uncontrollable kids in his class (At parents eve they said 1 or 2 is manageable but they have too many to handle) They tell the teacher they're a cunt on a regular basis. They don't get through lesson plans because it's so disrupted. My son has been described as a casualty of the behaviour of others.

This is at a good rated secondary that is oversubscribed in a nice area of the south east. We've spoken to the head, head of year and subject leaders etc. We care about his education and support the school and teachers etc. But what difference does it make? "Good" families don't change a school, they just get dragged down.

Just before I went to uni, students got grants to live on (can’t remember if everyone or means tested), unemployment benefit over the summer and housing benefit if they lived in digs. No fees.

My first ever ‘political’ letter was to complain that the low income certificate you get for free dental treatment, prescriptions and eye tests counted your student LOAN as income. (I got a reply brushing me off). I suspect that is still the same.

I agree that universities are next and maybe that is not a bad thing. We only need a certain amount of each profession - maybe the key studies (medicine, dentistry, engineering, etc) could be exempt from VAT and the rest charged.

it is actually a luxury to study for a degree which isn’t immediately related to what you will work as. Not sure why this should be subsidised by the taxpayer (if we are describing absence of VAT as a subsidy)?

Just before I went to uni, students got grants to live on (can’t remember if everyone or means tested), unemployment benefit over the summer and housing benefit if they lived in digs. No fees.

The year above me (they started uni in 1989) I think were the last year to be able to claim unemployment over the summer, in their first summer. I (started uni 1990) never could, though I had three jobs over the summer so I mostly cleared my overdraft by September. I also had a part-time job in term time.

I did get a grant - it was means tested on parents' income. My grant covered my rent and no more. Student loans were introduced I think in my second year - I never had one.

I can't remember when being charged for fees came in, but I do think the cost of uni now puts off some poor students. We probably don't need as many as 50% to go to uni, but I also think that everyone who really wants to should be able to - some fields do require a degree. Mind you, I never became an industrial archaeologist because I couldn't afford the masters and had to go and earn money instead.

But money has always bought privilege and more options, whether in education or any other field.