Discussion over private schools brings out illogical viewpoints, sheer hypocrisy and the worse traits in people?

[ByPeachJoker]

First off, not that it should impact an objective debate, but we do send our son to a private primary school but would consider ourselves middle income earners.

As you can imagine, this is linked to the PMs debate just now, but having read a recent MN thread on a lady who wanted to know how she might be able to avoid paying VAT on school fees should Labour come into power, I was shocked at the vitriol thrown her way. As far as I could tell, the issue wasn't so much that she wanted to avoid the VAT but the majority of comments were coming from people who essentially felt like this lady was somehow getting her comeuppance, that she automatically deserved to suffer some form of penalty just by virtue of choosing to send her DC to a private school. She made a 'bad' choice and should suffer the consequences.

One comment was simply 'how about sending your kids to a state school like 93% of the population'. It completely disregards the fact that there is a child at the heart of this and that a fairly arbitrary tax change is a) going to lead to an additional cost for exactly the same thing and b) for many parents, this change will mean they cannot afford the fees and this may lead to a child's education and social environment being uprooted. I'm not here to necessarily discuss the actual fairness of VAT being imposed on private school fees but more that there is this automatic reaction by a majority of people whenever private schooling is discussed and that this reaction is rooted in nothing logical and is based on the worse of human emotions such that people ignore the fact that many parents are making a financial/lifestyle sacrifice for their children.

Much of it comes from this completely incorrect assumption that you must be wealthy to send your child to a school. I get the impression that many are misinformed and assume that most private schools are like Eton or Harrow and have fees in excess of £20k a year which really is not the case. I think the negativity comes down to the fact that it's people's children that are involved and so people naturally come to see parents who send their kids to private schools as paying for some form of advantage and this being inherently unfair. Now I accept that there are a lot of people who simply could not afford private school fees BUT (and I know this will be incredibly unpopular) to be quite frank, most middle class families can but the parents simply aren't willing to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifice to send their kids to private school and yet they are happy to try and hate on those that do.

Ultimately they might choose to spend their money on a more expensive car, a bigger house, a nicer holiday etc. I used to live in a new build housing development where people in one bedroom flats had brand new Range Rover Sports parked up outside. It was ridiculous that people who could seemingly 'only' afford a 1 bed flat were buying or leasing cars that were almost a third of the value of their home. However we let them make their choice and move on.

Now you can argue about the ethics of private school education but I think those who automatically view parents who send their kids to private school as people who should endure some form of suffering or deserve whatever is coming to them need to look at the hypocrisy they show when compared to their own lifestyle choices but also understand that we're not all millionaires and have actually made a sacrifice for what we hope is the benefit of our children - have you done the same?

So you’re not envious but you ARE annoyed at private school parents. So you do think they should be punished? And how will that benefit state school pupils? Because if you think ANY of that money will go to helping state schools I think you would be mistaken. What will happen in reality is that it will cost local councils a fortune to administer the estimated quarter of private school children who suddenly require a state place and no-one will benefit.

It's selective in that they need certain grades yes. But doing A levels anywhere is selective in that case - at 16 you need certain grades to be able to take A levels. It's not fee paying. no

Edited to say, I see this has already been pointed out!

All sixth forms are selective.

I was a private school parent. I’m annoyed at the tone deaf whinging. It’s NOT a punishment. It’s adding a fair tax that should have always been there. And I feel embarrassed by it. It’s the hand wringing and whining I’m annoyed at.

I think what I object to - and it is not the availability of independent schools - is the assumption that by sending your DC to a fee-paying school you are unselfishly conferring untold benefits on them? And that parents who can't afford school fees are in some way less caring? There are plenty of excellent state schools around, and some rather mediocre fee-paying ones.
I know - I've worked in both!

Having said that, I accept that there are some children who would not thrive in mainstream state schools.

Yes I was wondering how long this would take to go through (if it does happen). Nothing ever happens quickly in this country.

If the tax is such a great idea why do the European countries have it as law they can’t tax private schools? Education is education - it should not be taxed.

I agree with the sentiment of the OP that the debate over private education and especially the proposed ending of VAT exemption has brought out the worst of some people.

The premise that no-one wants to pay more for anything is a normal thing though. After all, millions of people self flaggelate by flying with Ryanair because it is a few pounds cheaper, or they believe it is.

The issue people have is that those who use private schools are buying privilege and advantage for their children Since ultimately those children become adults in the same job market as those who are not privately educated, this is to the detriment of those who can't afford it. I understand that parents want to do the best for their kids but don't be surprised when people resent others paying for such an unfair advantage.

There is also a pretty strong argument that if those using private schooling didn't have the option of avoiding state schools there would be much more political interest in improving state schools.

That's just where the disagreement is. Is taxing education fair or sensible? I don't think any type of education should be taxed on principle - including swimming lessons, sports, music, drama, art, coding etc. People should be encouraged to invest in their children's education. I haven't seen any whinging. Just people calmly explaining why it's going to be difficult (or impossible!) for them to afford and why they feel their child benefits.

How many are left leaning middle class in uproar at having to take one for the team, I wonder?

YABU. You are chosing to buy an advantage for your kids (which most people are unable to do )and you should have to pay tax on this. Spare me your entitled middle class whining.

A private education shouldn't give you any kind of unfair advantage. Nobody should get a job just because they have a particular school on their CV. It is only giving your child an advantage in the same way that buying your child an electric toothbrush gives them an advantage over children who have a cheap plastic one; or buying your child swimming lessons gives them advantage over children who only get a few lessons at school. At some point we have to decide, do we want an educated population? Do we want a skilled population? Do we want kids to learn to read and learn to swim? We have to figure out a way to make it affordable for everyone. For some people that might mean their child getting extra funding from the state for a special needs programme. For some that might mean budgeting so they can afford private for a child that's not doing well in state. For some that might mean sending their kids to the local state and making sure they do their reading every night. The future prosperity of our country depends on getting this right. If we get it wrong, everybody is going to be less well off in the long run.

Kier has said as soon as possible, but te experts are saying probably not before April 2025

I have no idea. But IMO it IS a luxury and should be taxed as such.

I don't think people hate private school parents. Well, some of them might. I think mostly it's the whining. I have two at private and we are a family that absolutely isn't one for those that will be able to absorb this easily. We've looked at our budget and will definitely be in a much 'worse' financial position. But we choose to do this, for various reasons - and we are definitely privileged to be in a position to have afforded it this far. Whining and complaining about having made sacrifices and not wanting to pay more about a choice you made to buy a better education is embarrassing.

SEN reasons aside (and I do hear you and sympathise that you have legitimate reasons for placing your children here but that isn't the OP's situation and so I'm just speaking to her argument) if you can send your children to private school you are not only just making ends meet. You have to take accountability for your choices.

Hopefully, if this comes in we can ride it out, but if we don't then yes we may well have to change schools. And my kids won't dissolve. They might not like it, there may be some upset and disappointment but that for us to manage as parents - life happens and it's not always going to be smooth. The hyperbole about the 'tragedy' of 'uprooting' children and effectively destroying their lives from which they will not recover is ludicrous.

I still agree with you op. I think it’s also mostly jealousy. Some people will always earn more money than others. They can then spend their money on whatever they want.

My dad sent me to private secondary (due to bullying at state primary). He came from a very poor country with nothing, and built his own business up from scratch. He wanted to give a good life to kids.

There are far worse things to spend money on that education and healthcare.

I say this as someone who won’t be able to afford private school for my own kids.

Your first assumption is wrong, one-child families now outnumber two-child families in the UK. Therefore the "average" family has dropped some way below the 2.4 children that used to be normal, down to 1.74.

The £40k figure was yours. You were talking about a household with two earners, each on £40k gross and I answered on that basis.

I am fully in favour of vat on private education and actually would get rid of private schools altogether, but even I can see that there needs to be a lead in time of at least a few years so that children do not suffer from disrupted education and social lives. It would not be in anyone's interests to bring in immediate changes that result in children having to be removed from their schools.

@PrincessTeaSet · Today 20:34
I am fully in favour of vat on private education and actually would get rid of private schools altogether.

If private schools were abolished do you think the school buildings and playing fields etc should be sold on the open market, or confiscated by the government and turned into state schools?

When I see the government tackling the woeful SEN provision in this country, adequately supporting children with additional needs, not just with extra funding but actually reopening and providing suitable SEN schools, I will stop objecting to private school taxation.

The facts are that many SEN parents are forced to use private schools as mainstream cannot support their DC. Most of these parents are not rolling in it. Many have large bursaries or scholarships. Many autistic students are exceptionally talented at art, music or academics so can get a hefty discount. One family I know receives a 65% discount, so yes, with cutting back and two working parents they can just about afford it. Once VAT is added they won’t be able to, and their SEN child who demonstrably cannot cope in a mainstream school will be forced to leave.

This is the type of family that this policy will impact.

So I forgot utility bills. I suppose that you never miss anything at 2am. Oh wait, you did because you failed to spot that I had accounted for student loans.

So a dual fuel bill should be less than £2k according to British gas. Call it £2.5k with home insurance. Doesn't really change anything, not when I was pretty generous with the holidays (and it's only really KS4/5 where you might need to cut back on anything). Just go down to a single car and you're sorted. Maybe go camping during the exam years.

Oh please stop with the appeals to emotion, " won't somebody please think of the children".

They'd also only pay VAT on the 35% of the fee that they pay, not the whole thing. At average fee level that's 1050, or 20 quid a week. I think the handwringing is a little bit much.

but also understand that we're not all millionaires and have actually made a sacrifice for what we hope is the benefit of our children - have you done the same?

Choosing to spend more of your money on one thing, and less of it on other things is not a 'sacrifice'. It's a choice (and an understandable one imo). You are choosing what to spend your money on. Calling the act of buying better services, if you can afford them, for the benefit of your own family a 'sacrifice' makes it sound like some kind of noble, selfless act. It's not. It's just what wealthy people do all the time with lots of goods and services.

I think it's fairly clear that private schools perpetuate inequality.

Unfortunately so do a lot of other things (supportive family with time for you, educated parents, high family income, living in a 'good' area, access to extra-curricular activities, private tuition).

Yet there is no rush to ban all of these things. Presumably because, although they do confer an advantage which could be seen as 'unfair' (because other children don't have access to them), it is good for society as a whole that at least some children have access to them, even if some children don't, i.e. even if some sink, it's better that some kids swim even if, given the same advantages, the sinking kids would also swim.

Are private schools good or bad for society as a whole? Lots of arguments either way. Yes, they mean that some children are given a different, and arguably better, education than others. But is that at the expense of the others, i.e. does it drag the others down? Or does it raise them up, because there are more resources available for the other children (who are not in private school) because the private school parents are paying twice for their children's education?

To put it another way:

If the school budget is 100 and it has to cover 10 kids, then that means 10 for each child. But if 2 kids are taken out, then that means 12.5 for each children. Better surely?

But this makes 2 assumptions:

• That the government wouldn't simply increase the education budget so that there was 12.5 for each child (125 in total). But is the extra 25 coming at the expense of something else which is beneficial to society? An extra ambulance? Better social housing provision? Even if money saved from not having to pay for private school kids isn't spent directly on education, maybe it is benefiting us all in different ways.
• That the parents of the private school kids, if they transferred to the state sector, wouldn't demand that the education budget was increased to match or at least come closer to private levels of provision. So say private schools spent 20 per child, while state schools spend 10. Force private schools to shut and you might have a whole load of highly motivated parents demanding change, which might result in the overall spend per child being raised to 15. Which would benefit all children. But again, the money has to come from somewhere - either existing budgets or increased taxation.

As for why the debate is so vitriolic, I think parents understandably have a hard time coming to terms with other people's children having more access to opportunities than theirs do. While that's true about all aspects of children's lives (some will have access to better schools, more clubs, better housing etc.), private schools package this inequality in a very noticeable form. Even people who are willing to accept inequality when it benefits them in some ways (for example, living in a 4-bedroom privately owned house with plenty of room for their kids to study, while some of their children's schoolfriends live in mouldy, damp and overcrowded accommodation) baulk at the very visible inequality represented by private schools.