Is Bridget Phillipson's tweet accurate?

[Seriouslyy]

VAT debate aside - can someone please explain to me why Bridget Phillipson has linked more teachers to embossed stationary or more mental health support to pools?

My first thought was its just propaganda, but surely the Minister for Education would post something that is accurate so I am wondering what I have misunderstood?

I thought private school parents themselves are paying the VAT rather than the private schools? Bridget's tweet seems to be suggesting private school parents are paying for pools and stationary but now instead will be paying for teachers and mental health support? I'm very confused.

Bridget Phillipson's twitter post
"Our state schools need teachers more than private schools need embossed stationery.
Our children need mental health support more than private schools need new pools.
Our students need careers advice more than private schools need AstroTurf pitches."

Education Secretary’s private schools tweet ‘propagates class war’, says Tory MP | Evening Standard

Well who knows? Now it's begun I guess any government can whack VAT on whatever they want.

My kids' private school is passing on the full amount. This is in addition to an 11% increase beginning of this year. Two other private schools in our town have closed recently and the only other one is super expensive. If our private school loses any children they know they will get enough other students to make up the numbers and they don't care about individual students.

I'd love to take out dd but she was miserable in her old state school and I know that the change and disruption now would be too stressful. I know we are privileged to have been able so far to afford it but I don't think we will manage now.

I voted for Labour and I don't theoretically disagree with this policy. All kids should have the right to a decent free education but I think the way they are going about it will do little to raise more money for state schools and it will cause a lot of stress and disruption to kids currently in private school. Having to suddenly leave and join a state school after reception is very, very different to joining a state school at reception. For starters most people get thr school of their choice at reception but it is almost impossible to get in after reception. About half of the kids in dd's school are there because they couldn't cope in their old state school, were bullied or have additional needs but don't qualify for an ehcp. A lot of the others are not white and worry about racism in state schools. Our local secondary is notorious for it. But I guess for a lot of people the more hurt they can cause to private school kids the better. Since their parents were able to afford the fees (but possibly like us couldn't afford to move to an area with a better state school) they deserve all this stress and disruption.

And while I'm being bitter and self pitying anyway: of course it's ok for Keir Starmer to protect his son from any disruption. That is human and totally acceptable.

@WaterBuffalo 11%. Sheesh that's extortionate.

Our daughter is in yr9. She has a large bursary. We were already struggling, went into debt through Covid and our mortgage has been hiked by £400p/mth. Our school is increasing fees by 20%. It's lower middle earners like us not those with the 'broadest shoulders' that will feel the impact of this disproportionately. It will cause real pain to real families and labour are gleeful. We can't now have choice of a school which we would have had had we applied for yr7 entry. I've always voted labour but I will never again.

I’m sorry this is happening to you and your daughter - I think you have hit the nail on the head - they are ‘gleeful’ and it’s disgusting.

She is saying that the expectation is on private schools to make their current fees (what they are charging now) inclusive of VAT.

So if you were paying £6000 in fees it was expected that this would become (essentially) £5000 of fees + £1000 of VAT. The schools were expected to swallow the extra cost.

Of course, they've not done this because it would mean less money for them. She's highlighting that the private schools have chosen astrotruf, pools etc. over contributing to the state.

amp.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/12/uk-private-schools-rush-to-expand-overseas-as-profits-soar

In 2020/2021, private schools in the UK made £29 million in profit by expending their operations to overseas schools as well. That is despicable. Education is not a business. It should not be for profit.

If your school is one of those that's raising the fees instead of swallowing the cost, I'd ask yourself why - is it because they would really struggle if they lost that money, or is it because they want to put money in peoples pockets?

Ah you have bought into Labour lies!
The bigger outlay to schools is staff wages at 75%. With the remaining fees they then have to pay for: pensions, utilities (which as we al know have run exponentially for everyone), maintenance of buildings, equipment for kids ie books etc.
I accept a yearly increase (average 1K per year) because DDs school has great teachers and I want to ensure they are paid well enough to stay.
What I don't accept is an additional 3-4K per year in VAT when no other European country taxes education.

The IFS report is completely discredited now and Phillipson had shown her true colours as highly vindictive. They have now exempted EHCPs, military and state boarding. The last one is ridiculous, how can state boarding be exempt when parents pay same fees as day pupils in Indy schools. That just proves it is a spiteful policy against the independent sector. The maths simply doesn't add up yet Phillpson has committed it to about 9 policies, if (as predicted) it brings in less than £0.5 billion how the hell is she going to fund any of those 9 policies?

Over 50% of schools are not for profit organisations who by definition can't make a profit. Charities have to re-invest.
The guiding principle across Europe is that you don't tax education. In fact, in the EU it is illegal to do so, Greece tried and failed. There are now 3 legal challenges against the policy with more in the pipeline.

Fundamentally it is a smoke and mirrors policy to disguise the fact that Labour aren't actually going to fund state schools any better than Tories. Otherwise they wouldn't have told DfE to cut £1 billion from it's budget.

I am disgusted in the divisive language that Phillipson continues to use, she quite clearly hates the sector and doesn't give a crap about the 550,000 kids in Indy schools yet she is supposed to represent ALL kids in education. Labour refuse t discuss/engage and just ignore, delete and gaslight. Not a single education minister was at the VAT debate this week which shows how much they care (it also shows they know they can't justify this policy in any meaningful way over the standard 1 or 2 sentence script they keep parroting).
As a lifelong Labour voter I will never forgive them for this

Her tweet is somewhat ironic considering she gets tax-payer funded embossed stationery, and plays hockey on a private school Astro turf.

It's ok for her to benefit from these things...

Precisely

The private school we are considering has no swimming pool. Several state schools in the area do have swimming pools - we go to swimming lessons at one of them, out of hours!

@twistyizzy some headteachers at these schools are paid £300,000.

I'm sorry but they're profiting off parents who are willing to pay. Just because a charity has to reinvest doesn't mean they don't do shady things. Nearly all charity execs are on huge wages.

There are 10,320,811 school children in the UK. That's 9.7 million who aren't in independent schools. I think they should be given a fair chance. When our teachers are being put under greater and greater strain because of what the tories did to the education system, taxes will have to rise. The idea of private schools generating so much money and it not benefitting those in society who can't afford a private education is baffling.

I will always be against private schools until such time as our education system is restored. It's nothing to do with "politics of envy" or whatever line you'll trot out next.

It's because I've watched my sister, a headteacher at a state school that's been stripped further and further back, having to let some of her best teachers go due to cutbacks and needing to make redundancies. Her trust was told that they had to get rid of 10 teachers last year. They didn't get an increase in money, there was nothing to help them, that was the bare minimum to keep the schools going. That means that there's now ten classes worth of students who are in classes that are too large to be taught effectively.

While state schools have to scrape together enough money to educate their students, I will never, EVER support a system that allows the richest in society to buy their way out of it. You can say "oh we're not rich, we scrape to get by and pay the fees" but anyone with £6k+ of disposable income a year that can be put into school fees is doing a hell of a lot better than the majority of the country.

And how much do Heads at MATs get paid? Ridiculous to suggest that indy schools should cut costs when they aren't funded by tax payer yet MATs, which are funded by taxpayer, often have incredibly bloated SLT. Don't see Labour attacking these?

@twistyizzy I believe they should also cut costs.

Presumably if you're so against VAT, you'd be happy for the government to tender out to private schools like they do private hospitals? So the schools get approached, get an amount of money from the government (smaller than the current fees, which are terribly inflated), and the private school system is used to ease the pressure on the state schools, much like private hospitals and the NHS?

Class sizes of 30, the fee paying children still benefit from the teachers, and state pupils get the education they deserve too.

Surely that would be fine? Or is it about maintaining the divide between public and state schools?

Noone is arguing that state schools aren't under funded but quite simply that isn't the fault of indy schools.
Labour aren't attempting to increase funding in state schools that will enable improvement. They are tinkering around the edges with a divisive and damaging policy designed to inflict pain on the 550,000 kids in Indy sector whilst bringing no significant improvement in state.
If you do the research you will find that the biggest cause of inequality is having, or not having, 2 parents in a household. Education is #8 yet indy schools are being scapegoated by Labour as the root of all evil in the world and that by attacking them then all inequality will magically vanish.
There is massive inequality in state sector already but i dont see anyone challenging that. There will always be people who can buy privilege for their kids: affording house in catchment of best state schools, paying for tutors, grammar schools etc. Until you get rid of this then you will never have equality in education, with or without indy schools.

No I wouldn't because I oppose taxing education in any form. That is the guiding principle across Europe.
If you are in favour of it then presumably you support VAT on nursery and uni fees? Trust me, they are coming! This is a gateway policy

Yes that was particularly revealing. Awful woman.

I've never seen embossed stationery coming out of schools. Has she got confused with headed notepaper from the school office? Is that deemed not allowed any more for being Too Fancy and therefore unfair on the rest of us? Who knows as she's not using logic in any of her policies so far.

@twistyizzy

So you're against VAT, but you're also against the private system being used to ease the burden on the state schools.

So it's about maintaining that divide.

If they wanted rid of private schools they'd ban them. Most people wouldn't give a toss because the vast majority of pupils in school are in state schools. You just can't admit that it's unfair for parents to buy a huge advantage for their children without there being a benefit to society.

They can't ban them, they want to but it is too complicated and expensive.
We used state for primary and will use it again for 6th form. I'm not against state however you may want to paint me.
I'm all for proper funding of state, what I'm saying is that this isn't how to do it.
If you are so invested them you could always register with HMRC to pay more tax on order to fund state schools. They have that facility.
I also don't see any answer from you about addressing the greater inequality that currently exists in the state sector ie parents buying houses in good catchment, grammars + tutoring.

@twistyizzy this conversation isn't about that though is it?

Again, answer me. Would you be happy for state pupils to be sent to the private system in order to ease the load, as they do with the NHS?

Yes but then I would also want the government to fund my DDs basic place and I would top up to the fee level. That's what many countries do ie a voucher system.
You can't have it both ways!

"Maintaining that divide" is socialist engineering speak though. Parents (if able) chose a non stat option for their child and pay for it themselves. If the divide is to reduce it is for the government to raise standards in state schools (which private school parents also pay for).

The problem with VAT on education is that, as no where else in Europe adds it to education. Education is seen as a good in itself no matter who receives it. This is because these countries are enlightened and wish to support education as an end in itself.

Why isn't it about that? You were the one who brought inequality in, well there are massive inequalities currently within the state system and as 93% kids attend state school then potentially these are greater than at indy.

If the government (well, us as taxpayer) paid the fees the same as all the other parents including the VAT.

@twistyizzy well, no. Because that's not how it works. Those who choose it pay the full price, much the same as the private healthcare system.

Essentially you're happy for the 500k children to get it all and the other 9.7 million don't matter to you. Got it. Your only argument against it is "I don't like it"

@Nordione1 that's not how it works. The government gets a more favourable price as it's a bulk use of the service, the same as they do in the healthcare system.