To wonder if Private School parents think we can’t read?

[Captainmycaptains]

Work/volunteer in Education so following the whole VAT debate.

SM is full of private parent groups ‘organising’ to get the proposed VAT on fees cancelled - fine you would, wouldn’t you esp.if you’re used to getting your own way.

They’re advocating hassling local schools, councils, demanding stats and figures that don’t exist, wiring to MPs - telling people to ‘claim’ their state place to ‘disrupt’ the ‘system’ while also saying ‘ Obvs we won’t be taking Charlotte and Hugo out of school, we’ll find the money’ etc strive harder, getting granny to chip in’ but this might make the council ‘panic’.

Do they think that people in support of the VAT aren’t seeing/hearing/reading all of these plans???

the funniest one yet is the poster who said ‘ well going to claim our state school places then! See how they like that! We’ll going holiday, pay the mortgage down, shop at Waitrose and save £700k in the process, ha!’
I. no you aren’t 2. Okay - go for it! Who on earth would think £700k is worth it?? Behave like a normal person then…

YANBU - yeah, they’re noisy as expected but the rest of us are as think/ concerned as they seem to think. Also - it’s too late for Sept - waiting lists only…

YABU - applying for school places you have no intention of using is daft, and of course everyone can see what they’re trying to do.

How is it a bubble and why would that matter anyway? The point is still the same. It's not necessarily cheaper to move house.

Taken from the article I posted above:

Is it cheaper to buy a catchment area house or send your child to a private school?
It can be cheaper to buy a house in an outstanding catchment area, although this depends on where you are in the UK. It also depends on how much your nearest private school’s school fees are, how many children you have and how much the state school Ofsted Effect adds to homes in the area you’re looking at.

I am clearly in a London bubble, but I literally know nobody who did not carefully plan their DCs education. And that absolutely includes my former Polish cleaner who sadly went home after Brexit (don’t have a cleaner anymore), my electrician, roofer, plumber, all of my middle class friends etc etc, literally everyone moved or tutored or paid up. Everyone who has some aspiration for their DC and it absolutely includes ambitious working class people too. And often those who have successfully built building and plumbing businesses round where I live send their DCs to private schools. And I get it, they cannot help their DC with French and Maths like I can and they want them to have a better opportunity. In addition, I know numerous families who only send 1 DC with SEN in the family to private school and I have family in the military and diplomatic services who absolutely rely on private schools and are not paid like bankers.

Around 200k joint income or top decile in London means not very much anymore. Unless you have inheritance wealth behind you and no mortgage left. I certainly could not afford 4 x school fees in London all the way from 4-18 on that kind of salary. Post tax it would wipe most of it out.

Lots of people are paper millionaires due to housing wealth but do not have the corresponding income to show for it.

@winterrabbit it's a bubble because house prices in London are disproportionately high compared to the rest of the UK. An average 4 bed house in the UK is not worth £1.5m. Surely this doesn't need explaining.

Being in that bubble, it may well not be worth moving to save on fees. But again, that is not the case in many areas of the UK.

It's not a bubble, it's a fact of living in a capital/global city. Again, it defeats your argument.

Well if ps parents are castigating state parents as being spiteful and envious and they want to mess with the admissions systems of state schools then it's everyone's issue

@winterrabbit no idea how it defeats my argument. I said it may or may not be worth buying a house instead of school fees in London due to higher than average house prices. The article I posted above says the same. This is not my argument. It's just fact.

OP

Education in the U.K. is a postcode lottery. You must realise this surely, given that you’re ‘in education’ as you claim. Some areas have fantastic state schools. Others not so much, Some have selective faith school options. Some have the grammar system. Some have excellent independent schools. Some have crap independent schools.

Its all very well talking about the situation in your area. Every area is different.

You talk about this policy as if it’s actually come as a shock to ‘private school parents.’ It hasn’t though - Labour have been on about it for years. They used to talk about a ‘mansion tax’ too, though not sure what happened to that idea. Maybe that will affect you OP, as you say you are wealthy? Perhaps an inevitable ‘mansion tax’ combined with higher stamp duty will inhibit people moving into grammar school areas, or outstanding state schools?

We all know where Kier Starmer lives and can have a good guess at the state school his kids attend. No surprise there.

Every private school is different and every school will react to thid policy differently. So talking about ‘private schools’ ad if they are a homogenous group is a nonsense really.

For instance, I’m in SW London. Within 3 miles of my house, there are private schools which charge about £6K basic per term (or at least they did a few years back) - eg. schools in the GDST group which tend to be s bit cheaper. Then there are schools like St Paul’s, Godolphin and Latymer etc where the fees are more like £9K basic. Outside London, I’m sure basic fees are cheaper. But then there are more schools in the countryside which are boarding / flexi-boarding, or which offer long days (pupils staying until 6 for prep etc) - so those fees will be even higher. I’ve no idea how much full boarding is.

I’m saying this to make the point that the way schools pass on costs to parents varies a lot anyway and this will continue to be the case. For many, it will just be the equivalent of paying for lunches or not, or paying for a trip, or paying for music lessons etc. Fees go up every year anyway. When my eldest started reception in about 2007, it was less than £3K per term. By the time he left, it was almost £10K per term all in.

For instance, another one of the day schools one of mine went to had high basic fees (it’s was about £8.5K but this was some years ago) BUT a significant proportion went to the bursary programme there and this was the core ethos of the school. About 20-25% were on full bursaries there and it rises year on year. Will they be able to continue this - who knows?

As for your snipe about Hugo and Araminta or whatever - what planet are you on? Most people in London independents are British Indian / Chinese / European. Hardly anyone has two British parents born in the U.K. Hugo indeed!

The reason people pay in London is because if your local state school achieves 20% 9-7 at GCSE, but you know you have a bright child who could possibly pass the exams for a selective independent where 98% of all grades are 9-7 and you can afford it - what are you going to do? People don’t pay for connections or to be posh and that malarkey. It’s not the 1950s. People pay for results and safety.

Then there is the fact, if your child isn’t academic they won’t get into a selective independent anyway. One of mine was is very dyslexic. Rather than A-levels, they wanted to do another type of course leading to uni (not BTEC but similar). They went to a state college to do this (the only place that offers it locally) - the place was state of the art. Millions had been invested in the facilities and environment. Far more than anything I had seen in the independent sector…

About 5 weeks in, a student was fatally stabbed in broad daylight, just outside the main entrance to the college and witnessed by local school children. The boy killed was a refugee living here more or less alone. The boy / group of boys who killed him were 16. This never made the press and to this day, I don’t understand why.

Sorry for the essay (!) but basically the way I feel is this - schools and everything in the U.K. are woefully underfunded and more tax is inevitable. This school fees tax is just one easy headline for Labour. If the money is used effectively (I really hope it is) - fair enough. But it’s going to take more than extra maths teachers to put right what is going wrong in U.K. schools. It’s a social problem. A malaise. No wonder teachers are leaving in droves - they are expected to be social workers as much as teach.

Anyway, whoever gets in, a raft of taxation will be inevitably coming to everyone - whether explicitly like with this policy, or by stealth. I just hope the money is actually used effectively and makes a difference because nobody wants to live in a society where teachers are scared, pupils are failed and society is increasingly polarised. Nobody benefits from that. Just hope for the best really.

Do you actually understand that school fees are paid from post tax earnings?

I’m not following where the tax break is coming in?

@Calliopespa OP knows that. She doesn't care.

In some ways the old direct grant system facilitated a greater mixing between those who would choose state and those who would choose private. Getting rid of that made private schools more elite, as will the VAT proposal, so we’re moving further away from your ideal of sharing/community between the 2 sectors.

i see you are knowledgable about both sectors, and are aware that some private schools share 6th form classes with local state schools. Few people seem to be aware of this. I know this is done in MFL, Classics and Music, where classes can be small and uneconomic. However, I know examples of this where state school pupils are entirely educated in these subjects for A level at private schools (& the state school gets all the funding but doesn’t have any teachers), some of these pupils go on to win Oxbridge places and the head of the state school gives interviews bragging about how his school achieved all this with less funding than private schools - never mentioning the partnership with the private school and never acknowledging that the pupils aren't taught by teachers at his school at all. It gives a false impression. It would be good if there was more transparency and honesty around the whole discussion.

@Newbutoldfather

"The first two taxes are regressive, in that they hit the poorest hardest! Why did you choose them"

Fair point on raising the state pension age but the reality is something has to be done in either getting rid of the triple lock or raising the state pension age.

As for raising tax on alcohol, the tax raised from alcohol £13 billion should be at least the same if not more than the cost of alcohol to society £27 billion. Otherwise taxpayers are subsidising other people's misuse of alcohol. Similarly tobacco raises £8.8 billion in taxes but costs the NHS £12 billion, so again that should be raised to reflect the cost to other taxpayers.

As a compromise I would happily have alcohol sales in pubs and restaurants exempted in order to keep pubs alive given that they are closing at an alarming rate and create employment.

Is it cheaper to buy a catchment area house or send your child to a private school?

Where I live, private school is the cheaper option (depending on the number of children you have, of course).

I have two children in private school, and am happy to pay the VAT. But I understand that other parents are in different positions and are of course, entitled to their views and to air those views.

What I do find repugnant though, are people much wealthier than me who, rather than pay school fees, invest their money into £1,000,000 plus properties to ensure their children attend the best state schools in their city, at no additional cost to them.

Whilst their children are receiving a good education (and clogging up an already overburdened system), other children whose parents don’t have the money to invest in a £1,000,000 plus home, are not so fortunate.

I do hope the VAT raises enough funds to make a difference to state schooling, although I have my own views on that. I don’t understand, though, why the kind of parents I have made reference to are not invoiced the equivalent amount of what it costs the system to educate their child per year. Surely, they realise how privileged their children are to be able to attend such good state schools, and would only be too happy to pay up to help the schools that they would never send their own children to.

I’m good with wealthier people paying more. All of them though, not just some.

People talking about buying a house vs paying school fees, the house is the better option financially. After all, you can sell the house at the end of school and, as long as housing keeps going up beyond inflation, you have a winning asset and you don’t even need to pay CGT on it.

But I do think that is a really weird way of choosing a school for your child for those lucky enough to have the choice, and a lot talking about it on this thread are doing it for debating purposes.

I suspect fewer than 20% who privately educate have ever seriously considered state or will post VAT if and when it happens.

They won’t, it’s more blustering.

they seem to fall into two camps - the fuck with us and see what happens camp and the, possibly worse as it’s so fake, false ‘concern’ for the effect on state school places and children…

@Vivi0 ,

‘I do hope the VAT raises enough funds to make a difference to state schooling, although I have my own views on that. I don’t understand, though, why the kind of parents I have made reference to are not invoiced the equivalent amount of what it costs the system to educate their child per year. Surely, they realise how privileged their children are to be able to attend such good state schools, and would only be too happy to pay up to help the schools that they would never send their own children to. ‘

Some state schools do have a voluntary suggested parental contribution (at Tiffin boys it was only £500/annum 10 years ago) but very few parents choose to pay it. However, by law, that can only be used to fund extra curricular, not core as, otherwise, you would just get schools becoming quasi private with state help.

‘I’m good with wealthier people paying more. All of them though, not just some.’

I suspect some of the CGT, non dom and inheritance tax changes that Labour bring in will see them paying more. But the ‘levelling up’ that many talk about will require at least £30bio/annum if they are serious about it (that is 50% of current schools budget), and would still leave state schools at about 50% of private school income per pupil.

It would be laughable if it really wasn't funny. There's people in our country who have no home, can't afford food, heating. All ages.

The middle and upper classes have happily looked the other way. Told them selves they are all drug addicts and scroungers.

Now the cost of living is pinching the middle class and some families won't be able to afford private school due to vat increases and they are all up in arms.

Private school is a luxury if you can afford it good for you if you can't then apply to state school.

Or you know get a better paid job if it's so easy.

That’s such a narrow minded and prejudiced view. I am a private and state school parent. I’m also a state teacher and definitely not ‘pretending to suddenly care about state schools’. I really hope you don’t project your narrow-minded views onto your students!

I am not sure the total additional tax intake from non dom and inheritance tax will be that big to be honest. The top 1-5% which are non U.K. citizens and only working (and paying tax on salary) in the U.K. are highly mobile.

There are several other countries offering non dom status (with good international schools) and I have heard that both Italy and Dubai (close home for Indian nationals) are considered very attractive. The problem is that when they leave (as many will, but not all of course), we loose their current tax intake (very high) and people they employ (own business, domestic staff etc) loose their jobs… The net impact may be negative.

I really hope we do get the money though, really needed for the NHS, social care, elderly care - and indeed education.

‘There are several other countries offering non dom status (with good international schools) and I have heard that both Italy and Dubai (close home for Indian nationals) are considered very attractive. ’

bye then, don’t let the door hit you on the way out… Dubai is particularly attractive, who wouldn’t want to go and live in a society built on the abuse of migrant labour and with an appalling human rights record? Just the place
to raise children ready for the modern world.

Very well said. People have become a lot more selfish, generally since the advent of the current government.

It's ok for people on low incomes to struggle, but as soon as the people can't afford private school (which isn't a necessity) they are outraged and we should all feel sorry for them.

Given that the worst that is going to happen is a child attends a school similar to the one 93% of children use in the U.K. it really is laughable the fuss that is being made over this.

“Given that the worst that is going to happen is a child attends a school similar to the one 93% of children use in the U.K. it really is laughable the fuss that is being made over this.”

@Captainmycaptains - you are very naive.

This policy is meant to cause division between state and private school parents.

So that nobody tries to hold Government to account for the fact that it is way too much work to get your kids a decent state education.
Accessing any service in this country has become a bloody nightmare for all and is making us unproductive and causing unnecessary stress to all across the board. It’s unacceptable. Every child deserves a good education and they are simply failing to deliver that and unwilling to invest to deliver that. Because all the focus is on voters who are now primarily middle aged or old. They are failing the young and we are all going to be paying the price for that long term.

Given that the worst that is going to happen is a child attends a school similar to the one 93% of children use in the U.K. it really is laughable the fuss that is being made over this

Private schools employ people. Teachers, support staff, admin staff, grounds people, counsellors, cleaners, kitchen staff, caretakers and maintenance staff.

The worst that will happen to those people is that they lose their jobs. I suppose that their fault for working there, eh?

Many private schools are housed in listed buildings. Who is going to take care of them? The Government? The tax payer? Hundreds of years of our national heritage potentially just left to rot?

The whole point is that is not even close to being the worst that can happen.
People seem obsessed by the imposition of VAT and if parents can afford it. It’s not about that!
As a state school governor whose school works closely with a few great independent schools, it’s about those independent schools being told they are now viewed as businesses by government, not educational establishments. Hence they will have to pay business rates.
So, like any business, they may well choose to stop selling their service to loss making ‘customers’.
Thats 103,000 SEND children and over 150,000 children who get bursaries (fees are paid either wholly or partly by the school).
So if those children have no choice other than to move to the state sector, we are ALL in a whole world of trouble. Every single child in state education will suffer due to the obvious extra attention required by SEND children alone.
We would need somewhere close to 50,000 extra teachers/TAs to cope plus loads of extra resources and facilities.
Everyone needs to think through the consequences of this. It’s not about rich vs poor, them vs us, private vs state, it’s about a good education for ALL children and this policy will make it harder for those in the state sector. It’s madness.