I genuinely want pro-VAT people to answer these two questions

[Seenandheard]

(1) Do you realise that a private school child saves the tax payer/government thousands of pounds per year by not taking up a space in state school? Not to mention the space in the classroom/competition for places? (Do you care about this point or gloss over it in your minds?!)

(2) Do ypu realise that taxing education is illegal in the EU?

Yes or no to both points, please.

I do not want reams of uninformed angry opinions. I don't want this to turn into a multi page thread/bun fight. I just want to understand whether people realise these two points, really, truly understand them. Because it seems to me that there is a mentality of "they're getting a tax break" (WRONG) or "they're taking something away from my child" (WRONG) or "they can afford it so they can spread their wealth a bit" (I'm not going into the fact that my family spend more on taxes than Nordic countries, who have a far, far higher standard of living. We give so much, get almost nothing in return- but apparently we need to give more. More. More.)

I think my deep rooted anger here is to do with people's attitudes and uninformed opinions more than the policy itself. I need to know if people are aware of the facts.

Agree. And appreciate @CurlewKate posts on trying to move the discussion to something more constructive and less tit-for-tat.

Let's take the VAT/no VAT argument out of the equation and just all agree that something has to be done to improve state education. What would those things be?

@anothervoice post above references issues with parents not engaging with their child's education; I think this is a huge part of problem creating inequalities in the state system.

Can we all think of one thing that can be done to improve state education? Not just 'throw more money at it' but specific measurable things that we can think of.

Wait....according to the 3,489 threads we've had on this subject, private school parents simply can't meet the 20% increase as they're not wealthy and sacrifice everything to send their kids to school.

Now you're telling us that not only can they afford this, but will easily swallow VAT on uni fees too.

Well, at least we now know that all this drama over the past few months has been about keeping a few extra quid in already rich people's bank accounts and not about their children.

I’m not twisting anything. It’s a serious concern for a number of parents. But they are just told to stop “whining” which is disgusting.

Sounds rather like communism… should we all live in the same sized house too and support the same religion?

You will never be able to tax them out of existence, there will always be foreign pupils that can afford any fee rise.

It seems the vast majority who want to scrap private schools are those who can’t afford them or are struggling with cost of living therefore want to drag everyone else down with them. We live in a free country with free choice. Why does it bother you that people privately educate their kids? They will be paying VAT soon.

Post as you like. There’s no connection there between what I respond to or you do

In Finland, their education is exceptionally high and private schools do not exist. State schools are a high standard for all learners and that's how it should be.

Oh grow up. You know clearly that some parents will be able to afford it and others won’t.

It will simply widen the inequality gap further. For those children whose parents or grandparents can no longer afford it, will be displaced perhaps during their exams.

Unless things have changed (wholly possible, and I hope so!) you don't need to be to work in a free school or an academy school, either, because they have the same legal standing in some ways as private schools - they are independent of state control.

Only maintained schools - directly funded by the local authority - mandate QTS.

Agreed. We need state schools so good, people happily send kids there - every background, every need.

But that's presently a pipe dream and a half.

Yes - but I’m not sure how it would work but - Catchment areas. I have taught in the most fantastic state schools, in leafy lane areas. Basically they are better than the private school my children attend but we don’t live in these catchments so we pay to get the equivalent. But the parents in these areas are switched on - some of the schools I worked in are catholic schools, so their children are baptised but they aren’t practising catholic, or they put down their grandparents or friends address when applying for the school to make sure they get in. They want the best for their children so no judgement here. I’m slightly jealous we haven’t done this as I would love my children to attend these schools for free. We also have Grammar schools in our area, and again families plan around these for secondary school. I can’t fault this though as I love parents who want the best for their children as I see so many in my line of work who couldn’t give two hoots.

So I think looking at either changing catchment areas or making all schools similar - but I’ve no idea how this can be done. My school I’m in now is in Bradford- it’s got a lot of disadvantaged children and with EAL , it will never be the same as a state primary in Harrogate- it reflects the area it is in so much, socio economic status, the demographic of the area etc it’s quite deep rooted.

Agree.

Why would they extend the tax to universities?

@Ohthatsjustalotofeffort yes, all great points.

Someone upthread mentioned the Minerva school which bucks the trend in the area it's in. So maybe there are ways round the traditional views of schools in leafy suburbs doing better than those in deprived inner cities?

This is the very problem. Everybody thinks if you removed private schools or made them less accessible than state schools would improve. That’s not the case at all.

But we should be focused on improving state schools, it’s a shame private schools have to be dragged into that. I understand the 20% is to hire new teachers etc but that is not going to solve the problems of state schools or make them much better. It will make places at your local grammar school far more competitive and mean your DC less likely to get a place, therefore they could end up at their local comp which isn’t very good and they suffer as a direct consequence.

Whoever pulls their child out of private school because they can’t afford it is more likely to be able to afford a tutor or a house in the catchment area…. So again those children at the very bottom suffer!

It astounds me that people cannot fathom the knock on consequences, all because they’re spitefully happy that some parents can no longer afford it. The children are at the heart of this, any adult who takes joy in their displacement or not being able to obtain a good education (state or otherwise) needs to take a good hard look at themselves.

@EasternStandard "Post as you like. There’s no connection there between what I respond to or you do"

Now there's a gracious and constructive response. Hey ho.

My nearest state secondary school is eight miles away, never mind private schools which are even further away. There are many people in this country that don’t live within a few miles of lots of schools. To get slightly cheaper fees, we would have to travel 50 miles so any benefit would be (1) eaten up by transport costs and (2) I wouldn’t be able to work as it’s a three hour round trip at peak times. We could move but my oldest child is happily settled in his state secondary and about start his GCSEs. It’s really not as simple as you are trying to make out. Plus, the people who are going to struggle most are likely to be the ones in the smaller, cheaper schools anyway, the ones who moved their kids there when the state system failed them.

@ApplesOrangesBananas "It astounds me that people cannot fathom the knock on consequences, all because they’re spitefully happy that some parents can no longer afford it"

Please can we stop saying stuff like this? It's not true and doesn't help.

Thats illogical, we are told time and time again by so many posters that less children will now go to private schools, surely that narrows the inequality gap?

Won't be a 20% increase, schools have many levers to pull to reduce how much is passed on to parents.

Stop with the falsehoods.

Exactly this - instead of arguing (not you ) on mumsnet about parents choosing to pay for their children to go to private schools as they’re not happy with the current state schools, we should raise the standard to the same.

All this enthusiasm and passion should be put in to raising the game in state schools so they are equivalent and then there’s real equality. This is what should be being done by the government but to cover up the lack of accountability of them doing so , they get a headline that they’ll put VAT on in private schools. This raises very very little to help the cause and diverts people from the real problem the country is facing.

Everyone on here should be arguing to change state schools and bring class sizes down . Instead of recruiting 6500 teachers which gives each school in the UK 1/3 of a teacher- that number should be 5 times that and 5 times the amount of TAs and they should be building more schools to reduce
class sizes down. This is billions and billions of pounds but it is what is needed. A complete radical reset of state schools in England.

With all the talk about SEND, it's worth noting that children with severe SEN aren't in the nice little private schools with 15 in a class, because those schools won't take them. Someone upthread wrote about their child taking exams to be accepted, so presumably they still met a minimum standard. Someone on another thread wanting to get their children into a private school for SEND reasons found many schools in their area wouldn't take children with EHCP.
The kind of children I have worked with (non-verbal, violent, severe behavioural issues) aren't in private schools unless they are dedicated specialist schools. Private schools can't afford to have too many children who bring their league position down, since the type of pupils in the school isn't taken into consideration when publishing results.
There are children who end up in certain schools because the 'better' state schools won't take them, even, never mind a private school that requires a child to sit an exam before agreeing to accept them (yes, I know not all require this).
The idea that most private schools are contributing significantly to SEND education is only true up to a point.

Asking people to post a certain way is odd to me tbh

It’s clear on these threads that delight in the thought that the dc whose parents can only just afford it will be moved. Including the usual stereotype remarks on the those children that wouldn’t go down well if used for others.

I find it depressing to see. Not surprising on mn but still. Actually more typical for mn recently than a while back

@anothervoice if I was in charge of education and allowed to completely blue sky it, I would bring in fair banding, a ballot and school transport. There will be some areas where this could be tricky- but in most parts of the country it would work well.

Agree. What is 'fair banding'? I haven't heard of that.

Whilst I have never made comments about jealousy or spite myself on these threads, as a working class former free school meals girl myself, I have faced a lot of criticism, bitterness and resentment from some family and “friends” about the school choices that I have made for my DC. It’s usually goes along with “I can”t afford it”. And, yes, it does make my blood boil when the very same people spend £20k on a holiday to Florida each year. Or, in the case of one “friend”, has four rental properties on top of her main residence. I suspect that many of these posters have encountered similar behaviour, which is what is influencing their posts.

Private will be the preserve of the even wealthier who can afford it. The gap between the two sectors will widen