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.

The majority of day schools do not charge £30k. That will be one of the more expensive schools in the country. The average is around half that. The expensive schools are far less likely to be affected by the VAT, because they will be able to reclaim more input VAT, have wealthier parents, and families who have pre-paid several years' fees and could well avoid the VAT charge.

There are around 1.3m stay at home parents in the UK. Most of those have children in the state sector (there are only around 600k children at private school). If those parents chose to work, they would be able to choose private education. There are around 8m who work part time. If they increased their hours, they may well be able to afford private education.

Many private nurseries charge more than private schools. If parents can manage those fees for 5 years, they are likely to be able to manage private school fees, admittedly sometimes with sacrifices.

Many parents at private school are not on enormous salaries. They often have 2 parents working full time.

That doesn't answer my question though, or why some schools manage to provide a fantastic education on the same money that others cannot?

Yes more money is needed, to fund the 5% teacher pay rise amongst other things, but without looking at why some schools thrive and some fail with the same intake and resources, I don't see there being as much impact, which is failing our children.

Them being in power for three weeks has nothing to do with the lack of substance in their manifesto on education which they had months to debate and discuss. There have been some great ideas upthread on how to improve state schools which may or may not require funding and which would definitely address inequality in the state system.

Why doesn't Labour look at some of these?

We know there is ideological opposition to the existence of private schools in the Labour party, both Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves have expressed these views. There was a vote at the 2019 Labour conference to abolish private schools. This policy seeks to appease those on the left with these views while also throwing a sop to the public who are sick of shite education. Whether it achieves anything at all in the long run is clearly still debatable.

And this is exactly how my daughters head managed to up the schools funding. She had unused classrooms, a keen interest in SEN, so set up a 'halfway house' school as you describe it. Children integrate where able, receive intensive support as needed. Families are happy as their child with mild-moderate needs can attend the same school as their siblings and receive a really personalised school experience. Every child is funded for a 1 to 1 so can integrate, but dont always need them, so that's a beneficial resource across the school. The extra funding means she can keep the mainstream classes at 20 per class, which suits the needs on many children, and outcomes are fantastic for all both SEN and non SEN.

From what I can see wrt funding v outcomes it seems to be intake and any selection by house price or grammar intake

This is likely to be more of a factor when more switch to those schools due to the policy

But this in itself is a false premise, as these parents who are trully stretched form a very small proportion of all those at private school. Sure, they are vocal and upset that they might no longer be able to afford what they once had. But, for the vast majority of private school parents it will make no difference. Therefore the impact on state schools will be negligible. Those "middle class families that scrimp and save" are deluding themselves in they think they are saving the state money - the marginal cost of an extra few children at a school is irrelevant

I have no problem with people opting for private school - fair play to them. We didn't have any children, so have also saved the state a fortune if I use the "middle class families that scrimp and save" argument. I have never used the benefit system, so have saved it even more. I always use private healthcare, so again saved the state more again. But, I don't expect special treatment because of it, and I am happy that I have, through paying millions in tax over the years contributed to a society that supports those less fortunate. I do however have little sympathy for people who complain that they can't afford what they want and that somehow it's unfair.

@Bushmillsbabe

But are schools which are underperforming, struggling solely because of lack of funding or due to something else? All schools receive similar funding, but lots of schools are thriving, with very mixed catchment, high SEN etc. Why, with the same amount of funding, and a similar cohort, do some schools do so much better than others? .

It's like the NHS, it receives the highest funding ever, and is performing worse than ever. Throwing more money isn't going to automatically produce better outcomes.

Exactly this. It's all too easy to blame problems on funding. The issues run far deeper. You could throw double the amount of funding at some schools and not improve outcomes. Look at the Michaela School. That produces excellent outcomes. It's in an area of poverty, with the free school meal figure far above the national average. Yes, there are controversies surrounding that school, but no one can argue that their results aren't excellent. What are they doing differently which other schools can seem to replicate on similar budgets?

It's a lazy argument to say "well our school isn't good because we don't have enough money".

@Another76543 when you have schools changing nappies and teaching children how to brush their teeth, I think that says a lot about modern parenting. And this extends throughout a child's life. A state school round the corner from me has a significant drugs problem it's trying to manage, with teenagers coming to school high on weed and their parents not getting out of bed or getting them up for school. How can this cohort of pupils ever hope to achieve their full potential?

Framing questions with flawed premises isn't a basis for discussion.

(1) Flawed premise. School funding is not that simple. On the current funding formula, while it is correct to say that if 1 private school kid goes to a state school, the exchequer will provide about £5000 to that school - that is not the same as saying that child will cost the school or the state £5000. In practice, demographics means that nationally, there is a surplus of school places relative to children, and so the space/infrastructure/staff exist so that that one student actually doesn't bring corresponding additional costs

(2) Is irrelevant since the UK is not bound by EU law anymore. But again, the blanket statement is flawed. The relevant provision of EU law applies to organisations that are subject to public law.

The definition of bodies that are subject to public law are bodies that are:

• established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character;
• have a legal personality;
• financed, for the most part, by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law; or are subject to management supervision by those authorities or bodies; or have an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law.

Independent schools do not meet the definition of bodies subject to public law, and so the ban on taxing education does not apply to private schools.

Genuinely, if you wouldn't mind (totally understand if you do) could you PM me on where this school is?

I do volunteer peer support for parents across the country, where I have time - hence my all too detailed awareness of the breakdown in SEN provision - and being able to direct kids in your area to a school that can offer what yours does would be a godsend. Would that there were more of them.

I don't disagree. What has changed though? Those families living in relative poverty one, two, three generations ago mostly still made sure their children were well behaved and toilet trained before starting school. I attended an inner city school in a poor area. The children came to school clean and well behaved though. I don't know the answer, but it's really not a simple question of funding.

Ah. So now we are at the stage where by posters suggest that state education doesn't actually require additional funding.

In 2003 spending per pupil - £6,300. In 2009 it was £7800. 2010, spending per pupil fell by 9% in real terms to reach £7,100, taking spending per pupil back to around the level last seen in about 2006.

These cuts were somewhat reversed in 2019. But the IFS calculates that we are still 4% lower than 2010 levels of spending. Do you not believe that those years of cuts will have had an impact?

"Funding squeeze since 2010 and increased role of individual schools. There has been a squeeze on funding since 2010–11. This has not, however, always been visible in the spending levels of individual schools. This is because maintained schools and academies both received extra funding to take on responsibility for services previously provided by local authorities (i.e. this was a transfer of funding, rather than an increase in funding for existing activities). As a result, over the decade between 2009–10 and 2019–20, primary school spending per pupil grew by 6% in real terms, whilst secondary school spending per pupil fell by 8%. This averages out to an effective real-terms freeze on spending per pupil by individual schools. Secondary schools saw a worse picture partly due to big reductions in school sixth-form funding. "

https://ifs.org.uk/education-spending/schools

I think she's talking about the ECHR - the protection of plurality of education, and parental choice in the education Article, probably with some cross-fertilisation from the right not to be unreasonably deprived of property (which is a non-starter argument, IMO, when dealing with taxation on an optional and expensive service).

I don't think it will fly, because you are not removing private education as an option, just narrowing the relatively privileged pool of people able to access it. But I think that's the argument she's meaning, given we are still parties to the ECHR, and we aren't in the EU.

In answer to your first question, yes, I am of course aware that we don't have to pay for state school places for pupils who are sent to private schools. And yes, I recognise that there would be an extra cost to the state if all of those children suddenly switched to the state sector. If that were to happen, I would be happy to pay more tax to help cover the increased costs because I think the long term benefits to society from eliminating private schools would, on balance outweigh the cost of educating the extra pupils. However, in reality, I think very few families will switch to state as a result of the VAT.

In answer to your second question, yes, I am well aware that it is not legal within the EU to charge VAT on education. However, we are sadly no longer within the EU. If I had a choice between going back to how things were before the referendum and charging VAT on private school fees, then I would absolutely choose being part of the EU hands down. However, my EU citizenship was removed from me without my consent, and it does not appear that there is any realistic prospect of reversing this decision any time soon, so we have little choice but to make the best of it. I see very little benefit in rigidly sticking to all EU laws without any of the benefits of EU membership. And if not being part of the EU means that we are now able to charge VAT on school fees, then that is a small benefit that we may as well make the most of. There are not exactly many other positives to choose from.

And from March 2024 -

"To sum up, the government regularly claims that school funding and funding per pupil are at record highs. Such claims are, to put it mildly, unhelpful to public debate. Prior to 2010, school funding per pupil was at a record high almost every year. The fact that this has not been the case since 2010 just reflects the fact that we have seen historically large cuts to school spending per pupil. Furthermore, the actual costs faced by schools are growing faster than overall inflation, such that the actual pressures on school budgets are likely to be much more challenging than when we use standard measures of inflation to calculate real-terms changes in school funding per pupil. On current policy and projections, we expect a 1% fall in the purchasing power of school budgets in 2024–25. If the government wanted to compensate schools fully for the expected cost rises, school funding would need to rise by a further £700 million over and above existing plans for 2024–25. If the government wanted to go even further and compensate schools for the 5% loss in the purchasing power of school budgets since 2009–10, it would require a total of £3.2 billion in extra funding. "

And this is before we take into account the cuts to school capital spending.

ifs.org.uk/articles/latest-picture-school-funding-and-costs-england

If that is the case, then her OP obviously wrong to say it is illegal in the EU.

But still wrong for the reasons you set out if she is claiming it is in breach of the ECHR.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I absolutely think SEND should be exempt from the VAT. I wanted simply to point out that it may not have quite the impact of SEND children flooding state schools.
By the way, I work in primary schools at early years level. Almost all my experience in an education setting has been with children at the start of their school lives. So all the children I work with with very severe SEND are not teens who have been destroyed by state school. They wouldn't cope in a standard private school either. These are the children that are waiting for places in specialist schools, which may be years, because they are so oversubscribed.
There are absolutely children who are destroyed by State school, but it's a mistake to think we aren't seeing that high level of need at foundation level because we absolutely are, and these are the children you just don't find in many non specialist private schools.

@Notonthestairs I think people are saying there's more than one way to skin a cat. Throwing money at a problematic system isn't a good idea. Private businesses tend not to do it. But there seems to be this acceptance in the public sector that money can fix everything.

I am NOT saying that I think schools don't need more money. But not all the challenges in the sector can be solved by money. We don't seem to talk about those as much.

I don't think people are saying it doesn't need more funding. However, the cost of funding schools is broadly the same if the student population is +/- 10%. So people chosing private eductation aren't saving the state any money (other than a few marginal costs like books, paper, materials, and those going from private to state school won't cost it any more either. So increasing funding will directly benefit everyone, even if there are a few more that are priced out of the private sector.

Why doesn't that get applied to private schools i wonder? who spend substantially more on each pupil than the state sector... strange that.

On your other point, thats why i suggested early intervention centres so parenting can be improved.

NHS is NOT receiving record amounts at all, only get to these every high funding figures when Covid measures taken into consideration.

Funding based on inflation and demand has fallen.

Totally agree. I think there has been a shift in mentality that the state supplements what were always seen as parental/family responsibilities.

So there is the answer to the VAT increase on fee's : the private sector can cut funding per pupil to match the state sector average.

Fee's may even fall.

Universities charge a fee for you to enrol on a course. You can call it whatever you like, but it's a fee and is stated as such. Universities are selective; you have to attain a certain academic level in order to be allowed to enroll. Universities are basically private schools for those over regular school age. Universities should charge VAT.

We could call your early intervention centres Sure Start, quite a catchy name I think...

Yeah, I hear you. I do peer support and I deal with that, too. LAs are increasingly brutal because of funding and expect primaries to cope with kids who need intensive and complex need support.

But with kids like mine, they mask and primaries genuinely don't see the needs. The damage really starts to show in secondary. I did with my second because my first was so harmed, so I got ed psych, SLT and OT, all of which identified very, very high needs. I was lucky and this was before Covid, and the LA worked with me to get the support in place to avoid the later high needs. She remains, for now at least, mainstream suitable, albeit independent. And as I say, I am not affected by this policy because her EHCP funds it all, so the exemption is already automatic for the LA.

I agree it won't mean flooded state schools. With my eldest, we "electively" (ha!) home educated for a couple of years, then had the assessments that found massive needs and then the EHCP was put in place. Home ed's what a lot of people do, and if they can't afford independent, I suspect the SEN kids similar to mine will see parents leave work to provide that. Again, I know a fair few. Costs of failing SEN kids are a lot wider than most appreciate.

We need a better model of school though. Designing them for the most robustly neurotypical, and then being surprised that they don't work for all and harm many, is just not workable. It costs the state way more down the track, quite apart from the human cost.

I am neutral on VAT for independents, as long as the exemption for SEN is stronger. I don't think it's a massive issue I will lose sleep on, given the state of education more widely, but at the same time I doubt it will raise much and it does seem red meat for the base as much as anything. But what does worry me is the way state education has been allowed to basically fall apart for so long, only a massive focus on improvement will change much - and where the money is to come from with the hit of Brexit and Covid, god only knows.