To marvel at privately educated Keir Starmer's hypocrisy?

[Bursarysadness]

Both Kier Starmer and his wife are privately educated. Kier's senior school converted into a private school in the second year of his attendance and he has received a generous full bursary up until his A levels. He has built his life and his success on this education, supported to the end by the bursary funded by the same schools and parents he is now trying to destroy. It pains me as my children receive 50% bursaries from a brilliant local school. We've worked incredibly hard to cover the remaining 50% but it has been worth it, seeing how my children blossomed. We had a very different experience in their primary state schools, including bullying and racism. We don't live in a great area. We have just been told that the school will probably reduce all their bursaries to be able to lower the fees for the non bursary parents who are now struggling because of the VAT introduction. I don't know what the future for my children is now and they have so many close friends where they are. They are both academically brilliant and work very hard - hence the bursaries were granted. I feel so depressed that, from what is becoming obvious, they won't be able to benefit from the generosity of bursaries the same way Kier Starmer did when he was a child ..

@Fluufer i assume that this poster was outraged at your blackberry picking policies? 😂 What a bizarre post it was. I have reported it.

Going by some on this thread the children at state schools don't matter as long as their child has an advantage then all hunky dory. Free school meals are a lifeline for many at state. High class sizes and not enough money for schools. The new government is trying to improve things for the majority of children. Some of the ones with privilege cannot see that

Again for the ones at the back.

"AssassinsEyebrow · 06/08/2024 16:07
Oh give it a rest.
Did you feel so strongly when the Conservatives came for free school meals?

If your children are as academically brilliant as you say, they will flourish regardless."

All children matter, not just the ones from parents who buy privilege.

Closing bursaries to new entrants is fine. If they can't afford to honour the bursaries for their existing pupils, then there is an issue with their financial management. Same if they have no reserves - they're clearly operating on a precarious business model that isn't sustainable anyway.

Do parents not do due diligence on a school's finances before signing their kids up? I wouldn't personally be happy to rely on a hefty bursary from a school that was sailing that close to the wind, as any kind of unexpected financial shock would obviously put things at risk. Tbh, I wouldn't even send my child to a school like that if I was paying full fees as I would be concerned about viability.

No one has said that they don’t care about state school pupils. Like many private school parents I have a DC in state school. It’s not one or the other. The Government can improve things fairly for the majority by general taxation that is based on income and assets.

In any event, this policy is going to raise very little, if anything, due to private school pupils transferring to the state system which costs the taxpayer money.

Lots of small private schools have very little reserves. They are full of ex state school pupils whose needs were not met by their previous schools. There is one near me. It’s a lovely school. Don’t criticise parents for sending their DC to it. If your DC was incredibly unhappy, you would do your best to take them out of the situation and for some people this is the only option. I decided against it for my DC (despite knowing it would be fantastic for them) because I was worried that it would be impacted by this policy. However, I did have a choice as my DC was accepted at another school AND I could afford the higher fees at another school. Not all parents have that choice. Whatever you think, many businesses including solvent ones, would be impacted by a sudden 20% increase in costs.

The answer is to improve state schools for all. What about the ones who cannot afford the fees when their children struggle, I guess they don't matter. Ots better to improve for all, that's how a good society works.

I'm not criticising anyone for sending their kids to any school, but if you choose a school that isn't managing its finances prudently, then there are risks associated with this. Even more so if you are reliant on massive bursaries from that school.

And yes, of course, all businesses would feel the impact of an increase in 20% costs (although the actual impact of the VAT will be somewhat less than this). This is why adequate reserves and good financial management are important to help weather any unexpected shocks. Not that the VAT is unexpected, of course - the schools will have seen this coming for a while.

It won’t be less than 20% for the smaller, less elite schools. They won’t have much VAT to claim back because they don’t engage in expensive capital projects. Staffing costs are their major outgoing and there is no VAT to be reclaimed on that.

And yes, there are risks choosing a school with low reserves etc. But for some parents, they have to weigh that up against their child suffering a complete mental breakdown.

I’m sure that the vast majority of schools do whatever they can to be financially prudent but for the smaller, cheaper schools there is little they can do to raise additional funds because increasing fees means that pupils leave and their overall income goes down.

Above all, there is no need for the Government to introduce this policy. There are other, fairer, ways to raise tax and fund state schools.

I understand that the policy will cause extra expense that some cannot afford. However I think there is limit to how much even the most supportive will be prepared to see as the fault of the government without starting to query personal responsibility, and the harm limitations that parents could take to avoid the scenario you describe.
Are we really saying that the number of private school parents who don't have enough savings to withdraw temporarily, to cover the VAT then repay after September; so their DC can finish the year, be prepared and say goodbye are that significant? And if so, is that really the fault of this government that they have so little put by?

I agree that state schools should be improved but this policy won’t do that and, even if it would, there are fairer ways to raise tax without impacting children that are already settled in private schools. There are also fairer ways to introduce it (i.e. not in the middle of a school year, not for existing pupils until they reach a transition point etc.)

And honestly, this state school pupils don’t matter argument is wearing thin. No one has said that. Many private school parents, like myself, have DC in both systems.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good scare story. Well done OP. KS has shown us how a grown up in charge of the country works well for all of us unlike the expensively educated, blond blancmange baby that Brexit inflicted on us.

Food's actually a great comparison, because it's not VATable - it's recognised that everyone should be able to access it, but those with more money can buy better (and still not get taxed).

DibblydoodahdahAnd

state school pupils don’t matter argument is wearing thin. No one has said that. Many private school parents, like myself, have DC in both systems“

Don’t you feel you’re giving an advantage to one that the other(s) don’t have?

I used to think this but near us we have an excellent grammar which offers state boarding, which is practically like a private school. And we also have one of the largest comps in the county, where there have recently been stabbings, it's had a poor ofsted rating and people i know who work there have told me they wouldn't send their DC there. So if one passes the 11 plus and goes to the grammar and one doesn't, and you can afford to send one private, the sensible option in my view would be to do that.

In the normal way of things its nobodies business how people stretch their finances and (unless you're poor or disabled when it seems its open season for the world and its dog to be telling you to batch cook lentils and turn your heating off) few would presume to comment. However if a group of people trying to garner support for a cause choose distress to their children arising from financial hardship as an argument, directing that argument to another group who do not buy the service I'm question, it's not unreasonable to expect a certain curiosity and commentary on their financial decisions, surely? If ones finances are a private matter, then they do not belong in this debate in the first place.

If I were still paying fees I would want anything I pay not used for bursary children if I were facing fee increases given many of those who pay school fees are the 10% of the UK who already now have the highest tax burden in 70 years and plenty also have 9% student loan charge too never mind vastly increased mortgages and huge stamp duty. However even though EU law says education of everyone including the rich is always in effect a moral good and it is illegal to put VAT on it and since about the 1500s charity has included education of anyone (changed in about 2010 to include "public benefit") more people than not support VAT on school fees so I think we only have the courts left to help if anyone does litigate.

I don't agree with any sort of "cry me a river" posts. But when "Have you thought of taking in ironing?"is the default response to anyone on a low income worrying about money I can see why it happens.

OP If your children are 'academically brilliant' then why don't they get a 100% bursary?

@sashh I'm not sure what the aim of your point is and what you are trying to highlight? Please explain. If feels mean

And bursaries are means tested so they look at all your income, all assets etc and decide how much you can afford to pay and they cover the rest. This is how bursaries work. Kids have to be in top 5-8% performance wise at the entrance exams to be even considered for bursaries (figures from our admissions team). They won't give them to a lower performing kid who doesn't have the means.

It's different from academic scholarships. I don't think they ever grant both bursaries and scholarships together (at least I've never have heard of anyone getting both). I guess because they are already helping you so can't help you twice? Bursaries are already a recognition of performance

Does it make sense? And I would love to understand the point of your post?

Thanks. LEAs have a statutory duty to provide school places do they not?

I must admit I didn't appreciate that private schools treat their customers with such contempt. Demanding full fees that far in advance of start of term with no refund available if circumstances change is a pretty shitty business practise.

Personally I can afford the VAT and will pay it for now so it isn't about affordability. For me it's about economic viability and the fairness of this in practice.

A very good friend of mine refuses to work because she doesn't want to miss out on quality time with her children or any get-togethers with other parents. Her husband is unemployed and they live solely off benefits. Her children are at an ofsted outstanding school. And yet I'm working incredibly long hours to pay for my kids' education and now I'm being told to pay more to fund state education - I'm finding it very hard to even speak to her lately.

Food is actually a great comparison because while most food is non VATable, some of it is. Particularly the stuff you can very happily live your life without.

I just don’t understand when people argue against the VAT by essentially saying ‘it’s really unfair if only the richest people can afford private education’

What advantage would that be? My DCs have schools which meet their particular needs so that they can both get the best outcome for them (and, for your information, the state school is higher performing as far as exam results go).