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?

"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."

Perfectly put, yet Private school parents who post here OFTEN ( not all ofc) make out like their is some kind of admirable piety in their decisions.

As I said before, I utterly flabbergasted at the number of posters who have 90k to send one child to secondary school for 6 years ( y8 till y13), but live in areas that have awful secondaries to choose from. At the same time, they also make out like their financial decisions are easily achievable if people just make a few "sacrifices".

In reality, as the data shows, the overwhelming number of private school families are in the top income decile and you need to be earning over 180k as a household to get in there.

£800 covers primary school fees for a year. Fine. And if you have two kids that’s £1600 a month. And then multiply that by 13 years. And add on uniform / school trips etc.

And they’ll still need a car on top most likely.

Most people I know who send their kids to state schools pay £800 at least twice for their cars. Many have a third hire car too 🥺. Uniform costs are often the same as state schools as nobody in their right mind buys uniform new.

Parents buy privilege and advantage for their children in many, many ways. Private school is simply the most overt.

If you’re a private school parent you must surely be aware that Eton is not representative of the average private school and where I am, fees come in at £15k mark. You sound very sheltered to the realist it’s that this policy is u likely to generate income for the state sector and that it will cause the closure of a number of schools.

My prices start at £80 per hour as a private tutor for the 11+ and GCSE. Many tutors are charging much more. Yet nobody seems aghast at my industry, which also places children who have wealthier parents at a clear advantage.

I’m not against private schools, good school catchments create unequal opportunities in the state sector. My child attends a nursery with a private school and the private school is closing at the end of this term, so private schools closing directly affects me. But private school parents are being so incredibly tone deaf at the moment.

The country is crumbling. NHS wait times are the longest they’ve been, people can’t see a GP, parents can’t access a dentist for their children (not even for themselves). We have landlords letting children live in and die in mouldy flats. Child poverty is high. There are children that if it weren’t for free school meals, they wouldn’t eat. We have parents who won’t eat so that their child can eat. Or so they can put the heating on. We have people who would starve to death if it weren’t for the kindness of strangers giving them a tin of beans and a bag of pasta. We have young people who will never be able to buy a house, constantly at the mercy of private landlords.

You driving an old car is not a sacrifice. You know why? Because you can still afford the repairs if that breaks. To afford private school, you probably have a job that allows some flexibility and so if you ring and say the car is broken and can’t make it in this morning you aren’t automatically fired. Or worse case scenario, you could catch a taxi to work. Or public transport because you’re probably not working the night shift in a factory on the dodgy side of town. My mum would buy £200 bangers. They would have 10-11 months on their MOT, they’d obviously be old. They would fail the next MOT, my mum would scrap the car because it would cost too much in repairs and buy another £200 piece of shit on four wheels to last another 10 months. That wasn’t really a sacrifice because we had food but driving a car wasn’t some statement about making a sacrifice.

The private school parent who posted that thread, asked what big changes they were having to do to afford the VAT. It included going from part time to full time. Completely missing the point that many people have to work full time and still have to send their child to state school. Many people are already not going on holidays and sending their kids to private school with no choice. Many families are dreading the next fundraising day at their child’s school because they are working full time, not having a holiday and they don’t know how they will find £5 to put into the fundraiser but they know without that fundraiser the school is going to fall even more behind.

I see your logic but disagree. I think for most, it's very much a view that you are paying for something that you perceive to give better value for your children though I accept that it ultimately creates a false divide on the basis that you are in someway 'rejecting' state schooling when actually it's about paying for something that you think is better rather than the alternative not being good enough.

When the majority of the country have no choice but because you want something “better”, it is a luxury. That’s fine, you have the income to afford that. But when you moan that your kids will have to go to state school, it obviously comes off as rejecting the state school. Your very definition of private being “better” is that state is not good enough. It’s an insult because there are some very good state schools (and some very bad private schools). It’s also an insult because a lot of people have no choice. It would be like someone walking around your home, that you actually love and think is “done”, and saying “it’ll be lovely when you’ve done it up”.

The other thing that is really grating is the faux naïveté that it really doesn’t cost that much. I agree with you that some primary school will cost the same as full time nursery but many people can’t afford full time nursery. It’s a relief for people to stop paying that amount. Sometimes that means they go on holiday because they want to enjoy themselves after paying that, they feel like they can breathe again and celebrate with a holiday. We have a household income over £100K. We use 3x days of nursery because full time is just too expensive. At the moment, we can’t afford private school fees. Yes, we’re used to paying that amount but the end of nursery fees means we can save and increase our pension contributions. There isn’t enough to spare to comfortably afford private.

I don’t necessarily disagree with VAT on university by the way. As someone from a working class background who went to uni, a lot of my school didn’t and I can see why they don’t want to pay for that. I would say if that policy is introduced it needs to be a graduate tax and not a student loan so as to level the playing field.

Finally, let’s not pretend that choosing a smaller class size, better resources, more flexible curriculum and more activities isn’t a luxury. Luxury items pay VAT from large to small items but you still pay VAT. If you have a plain biscuit (state school) it’s no VAT but if opt for a chocolate covered biscuit (private school) you pay VAT. This is reflected in every other aspect of our lives and it’s only because the Tories have decided this a vote winner for private school parents that they haven’t applied it to private schools.

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

hmmm…..given that private amounts to some 7% of children in school, state amounts to over 90% of children currently in school. Which parents have the most political power? I mean, why is Labour considering this as a policy? Because I don’t think it’s to pull in those 7% of votes, do you?

@notbelieved it isn't the % of parents that make them politically powerful, it's who they associate with and the influence they have through their job roles and positions in the community.

Absolutely this. Having gone to university with many people who are now powerful in journalism, politics etc, you see how completely clueless they are about the real world. If the option exists to keep themselves and their children separate from the 93% they take it (because that's what they've grown up with too) and the cycle continues and the privilege continues. There is zero motivation to shine a light on or focus on state schooling because they can just opt out for themselves. Unfortunately I do think personal drivers are important when it comes to those who have had a pretty sheltered life but hold a lot of power. If your kid has to go to a state school - even if you can get tutors on top - it will suddenly become a priority.

@hotchocfiend

I was amazed at the influence that was wielded by a local millionaire when his children joined the comprehensive my kids attend. We had been emailing the council, the MP and others for a while over a certain issue, this man was able to pick up the phone and speak DIRECTLY to the MP who then raised issues with the DofE and we got it resolved much quicker than had it been just little old us.

"There’s an area in South London in which so many local parents sent their kids to private schools that the local comprehensive decided to turn their admissions into an open lottery so they didn’t have to have a school filled with just the poorest kids in the area. They aggressively marketed the school to the middle classes, appointed a highly paid super head, and now get applications from all over the place from middle class parents who don’t like their local schools. Meanwhile all the local poor kids now have no local secondary so if they miss out on the lottery they end up at the schools no one else wants, often having to trek across the borough to get there. The school boasts it gets the highest number of applications of any school ever and it has no connection to the local area. The kids going to private school locally remain of course unaffected by this situation."

You're talking about Kingsdale school in Dulwich.

"There’s an area in South London in which so many local parents sent their kids to private schools that the local comprehensive decided to turn their admissions into an open lottery so they didn’t have to have a school filled with just the poorest kids in the area."

The lottery and fair banding admissions system was to address the issue of selection by postcode, as the school is in a road where not a single house is worth less than a million quid. It's also what some other popular schools in affluent areas do to address the issue of selection by postcode. Most of the school intake comes from nearby areas - Croydon North, Norbury, Peckham, Streatham, Penge, Sydenham. A small number of pupils travel in from places like Deptford.

"They aggressively marketed the school to the middle classes"

By which you mean 'they put some adverts on the backs of buses'. Like all the other schools in the area do.

"They appointed a highly paid super head"

The head teacher has been there for decades and used to be a maths teacher at the school when it was considered one of the worst schools in the UK.

"and now get applications from all over the place from middle class parents who don’t like their local schools."

There are huge numbers of comprehensives in London where children travel from outside the area to attend - some of these are partially selective, some select by lottery, and some select according to the religious faith of the parents. Kingsdale is no different.

"Meanwhile all the local poor kids now have no local secondary"

This is absolute nonsense. There are 3 absolutely excellent and big comprehensive schools within a 15 minute bus ride of Kingsdale: Charter, Dunraven, The Norwood School, Harris Academy Crystal Palace. Every child in Southwark got an offer of a secondary school last year - more than 94% of parents got one of their listed preferred choices.

"The school boasts it gets the highest number of applications of any school ever and it has no connection to the local area."

What are you talking about - 'has no connection to the local area?' Are you referring to the fact that almost nobody who can afford to live in Dulwich would send their kids to Kingsdale, because the entire area is choc a block with some of the most expensive and highly rated private schools in the UK?

This!! Exactly this!!

Kingsdale always has its passionate defenders.

Which bits of @izimbra ’s post are untrue?

Oh come on. Private education is about buying into an exclusive club that gives access to networks and many other non educational benefits. Maybe the VAT will get rid of the riff raff elements?

English is a second language for me too, but it's pretty easy to check.

Any tutors with income over the vat limit will tutoring income over the vat limit would also need to register and charge vat once education becomes taxable, obviously most won’t be over the limit especially if they are doing it in addition to a full time job but I know of a few who do tutoring full time including I the day for kids out of school who will be

I think that's rather an outdated perception. Employers are interested in the qualifications you have - they don't look at the school. I don't even put my school on my CV. It's irrelevant by now. And the PR department won't let people just hand out jobs to their friends. That's not why people use private schools. Especially at primary level.

But you're right on one point. The super rich who send their children to expensive boarding schools probably won't be affected. So, yes, the gap between those who can afford it and those who can't will get wider.

My SEN child is in a private school but his older brother is in our local state secondary.

We are not buying one of our children into an inclusive club.

Our private school does worse than the national average in GCSE and A-level results. Our state school is much better (by league tables).

We are buying a school with a SEN hub where overwhelmed autistic children like DS can go and rest.

If your child needs additional support - above what their local state school will offer - and you can afford to pay for it then why is that a moral outrage?

I am not complaining about the VAT. I accept it's a luxury choice and I knew there was an affordability risk. We withdrew DS is a severe mental health crisis and felt he needed an immediate change of setting. Our next choice will be elective home education which is also unaffordable to many.

I hope Labour can make state schools truly more inclusive by reducing pressure on teachers to get results and by giving schools extra resources for SEN.

Not in the majority of “normal” jobs but professions like law it’s still very difficult to get into if you don’t have the right connections. the higher you go in any industry it’s very much a case of who you know rather than just what you know, there are definitely lots of people in top jobs that definitely aren’t the best person they could have found. A public school I’m aware of through my own job has old boy social events in London for people to network, the school is no where near London

@Morph22010 I am meaning the moral outrage shown by many on here towards private education, yet the same doesn’t seem to exist for private tutoring. I wonder if it’s because - by and large - tutoring, swimming & music lessons, after school skills classes are more affordable and therefore more attainable to the many, so parents don’t want the fees increased to price their DC out? All of the above give an educational advantage based on wealth, particularly private tutoring.

£800 A MONTH? For three cars?? Each?? Where does your kid go to state school??

The area isn’t just uber expensive houses. There’s a council estate bang next door to the school for one thing, and plenty of other non-millionaire housing.

The school is very well marketed among primary parents, with the message that it’s your option if you won’t get into one of the other top state schools and don’t want your kids going to the local comp. The bus ads are the least of it. That message is true of course but it’s a solidly middle class market that it’s appealing to. (They control comments on social media very closely, infamously so locally.)

Kids living near the school are highly unlikely to get into most of the other schools listed as the distances for admission are so small. One on them on distance perhaps, if they are in the right direction. They tend to get into the schools with no or large distances for admission as a result.

The head may have been a maths teacher but he is now paid well over 200k (last figure on googling was 210-220k five years ago) and is in the top 20 most highly paid heads in the UK, one of only 3 to lead just a single school. He has faced several controversies, most recently by expanding the school at a time of falling enrolment, at the risk of causing other local schools to close and disrupting local school planning, with no guarantee that their former pupils will then have an alternative local place available. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/heads-revolt-over-planned-expansion-of-london-school/

No other local school runs a purely lottery entry. The school was turned around from a failing one, that is not disputed by anyone. But it deliberately removed all local applications. Other local academies have some murky arrangements; Harris Crystal Palace is regularly highlighted in Private Eye for its mysterious cohorts. Charter had to be forced to apply its own criteria properly to include kids from the local estate. But all at least on paper admit at least some local children.

You clearly haven’t read the grammar school thread. There are PLENTY that are against your industry if it’s at primary level (less at secondary level, granted).