It's a private school one.....

[Noangelbuthavingfun]

Many threads on MN ... I want to know this: why haven't Labour given any info on their modelling of what will likely happen and the different scenarios that could play out when they impose VAT? It matters - because if they get thus wrong ... and a shed load of kids leave private because their families have scrimped to send them there ... the state sector in some councils will quickly be overwhelmed with kids needing state places that does not exist....which could be a lose lose for everyone! You don't build a new school and resource it in a month.... these things take years . I feel for all kids as they will all lose out if this happens and labour having got contingency in place.
How would you feel if your child is in a good state school , perhaps they get some SEND support...and suddenly there is an influx of private kids as they need the spaces. Class sizes go up to 40, all SEND provision gets cut as not enough funds, extra curricular gets cut and teachers are even more stressed, so the vicious circle if teacher shortages now intensifies....the spiral continues for years to come. Who has won?? No one ....
What are your thoughts on this ?
I don't disagree with the principle that private is a luxury and probably should pay VAT... what I disagree with is the notion you can just implement something that will fundamentally shift things on a seismic way in one big bang. No thought whatsoever. Tell me if you agree or have a different view and why ?

What's missing from this debate it that private schools are classed as charities.

It's pretty depressing to compare what private school 'charities' do compared to actual charities that help the vulnerable and in needy, helping cancer patients, preventing abuse, suicide prevention, mental health support the list could go on.

Lending the odd minibus or playing the odd cricket match with the state school down the road doesn't really compare does it. The arguement for a tax break doesn't really cut it I'm afraid.

I guess it's easy to be so blase when you managed to get your children through on much lower fees. Of course they could afford it, they just can't afford a 20% bump. Very much I'm all right and screw everyone coming after me mentality - a least the people who just hate people having more money and better opportunities than them are not hypocrites like you.

Correct. I've lived long enough to see how effective the Tories and Tory press are at causing public amnesia every time it looks like Labour will win a general election tion.

They have managed to make many people forget entirely how much better funded public services like health and education were under the 97-2010 Labour governments.

The truth is that the Tories have mismanaged public finances, services, etc ASTONISHINGLY since 2010, shovelling billions into their friends' pockets whilst running public services into the ground. And STILL people appear to be willing to vote for the self-serving bastards.

I’ve decided to highlight the hypocrisy of inventing a sneer where there is none, while sneering yourself.

My friend is a sahm mum and her husband is an accountant. Their kids are at private. Say their daughter moves to a poorly-performing state school with a lack of specialist teachers and not adequate SEN provision. So the class are not being given the attention all the kids need. The parents then raise this but the head says nothing can be done. So they panic and get a tutor and manage to support their daughter to get good GCSEs. Is that what you mean?

I am not being facetious. Many people raise your point. I am just trying to understand exactly what it means in practice.

Yes, I worked in the NHS when labour were were last in power. Waiting times for treatments were really short but you would never think that if you read posts on here.

@Mirabai "I’ve decided to highlight the hypocrisy of inventing a sneer where there is none, while sneering yourself."

Be my guest. But someone pointed out a good state school to you and you responded with "it depends on your standards."🤣

@Iloveshoes123 "Very much I'm all right and screw everyone coming after me mentality - a least the people who just hate people having more money and better opportunities than them are not hypocrites like you."

There's another one....

My kids school is state but high achieving and this is exactly what they're like. Parents aren't told anything so they can keep up appearances, even if your child is involved! They are notoriously bad for it.

I wasn't actually thinking that all privately educated children have SEN. The great majority don't and if they all move en mass to underperforming state schools then they will improve.

No. I mean the state class might have kids with unmet needs. I was describing a state school class that was struggling with resources. Ignore the SEN comment then and I would appreciate your response.

How exactly is the ex-private school kid (no SEN) going to help raise standards?

And just add after the comment 'depends on your standards', this state school means house prices are astronomical due to the catchment area.

SOME are classed as charities

Where I live whether a school is underperforming is generally due to the intake and not the fact that they have less resources than a highly performing school. If anything the underperforming schools receive more money. If new students arrive who are academic and well behaved, the schools performance will improve.

Correct. What you call good depends on your standards. Compare Waldegrave with Henrietta Barnett, Queen Elizabeth, Wilson’s, Tiffin, The Latymer. Those are good state schools - some of the best in the country. Waldegrave is ok.

at the private school I attended, there was bullying, stealing, appalling drugs misuse (one girl had nosebleeds in class she was taking so much coke), horribly inappropriate relationships with teachers, teacher suicides (two in fact), and a smorgasbord of emotionally dysfunctional, depressed and angry kids.

Parents still paid for the “privilege” of their children to attend.

Bullshit. People dislike a shitty, unfair two tier system that punishes children for their parents financial circumstances whatever the reason. I really can't comprehend why so many are so accepting of this rather than ask why state provision is (allegedly) so dire. And if the state schools are so dreadful, how do the smug privates expect people to drag themselves up by their bootstraps? Is it just a tacit acceptance that 'I'm rich, you're poor, get over it'.Or are the state 'output' expected to solely aspire to menial jobs (someone has to do them for us after all and it won't be Tarquin from Eton). God, this doesn't even affect me but it really annoys me.

I find this concept of choice about schools (especially secondary) totally alien. Where I live there is one school per town. Hobson's choice. They are also not necessarily good schools. DCs school was in and out of SM like it was caught on the door handle for the whole time DCs were there.

If you don't like the local state offering there is a private school in a neighbouring town. Fees start at £11k and rise to £19k. Not selective (except by price), it's where the local toffs and gentry send their DCs if they dont want boarding. Judging by the small number of bursaries offered it doesn't have difficulty filling it's places.

The impact of the imposition of VAT will be that the toffs and gentry will have to pay more to keep avoiding the riff raff.

I wonder if it is this sort of set up Labour have in mind?

So when the children see the private school child working hard, and doing well (maybe with the help of a tutor), they will be inspired to work harder and behave?

Is that what you are saying? I find that a bit patronising to the other existing kids in the class. But maybe I am not understanding.

I really want to understand how the private school families are going to help the other kids. Not that they are going to help the school have better gcse results to publish because the ex-private parents support their own kids. I want to know how they are going to improve the experience of the other families already at the school.

Re the Tarquin from Eton cliche (does anyone even call their kid Tarquin?!), I think Eton represents all private schools as much as Grange Hill represents all state schools.

I think there are terrible and wonderful examples of both. And people from both sides generalise way too much.

I’m a qualified teacher (state) and we were so ridiculously short-staffed I often ended up teaching GCSE students in subjects that I knew pretty much sod all about.

My BIL doesn’t have a PGCE but is a Chartered Engineer with over 20 years experience, and teaches STEM in a private school.

I’d certainly rather the latter experience for my kids.

He certainly doesn’t have the “right pedigree” either!

Tarquin is a name and the post was exaggerated to make a point. I don't think that's particularly unfair.

The impact of the imposition of VAT will be that the toffs and gentry will have to pay more to keep avoiding the riff raff.

I wonder if it is this sort of set up Labour have in mind?

Quite. The wealthy won’t turn a hair. It will simply entrench privilege.

Meanwhile it won’t raise as much money as they think: fewer private school students = less VAT, more state school students = more funding.

It’s really a PR plaster on the gaping wound of U.K. state education.

What you call good depends on your standards. Compare Waldegrave with Henrietta Barnett, Queen Elizabeth, Wilson’s, Tiffin, The Latymer. Those are good state schools - some of the best in the country. Waldegrave is ok.

I would call those school better than good, as you say they are some of the best in the country.
Obviously a selective school will have better results than a non selective, I don’t think that means non selective with good results are only ok.