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

Sorry yes that wasn't aimed at you, my error

@twistyizzy my suggestion is that the private school system is used in the same way as the private healthcare system is used by the NHS.

The government tenders contracts and they pay a cheaper rate (as in what it actually costs, without all the profit margins on top) and then state school pupils are put into private schools. Most private schools have tiny class sizes so they can then increase these to make sure more pupils can benefit.

Surely that would be fine?

Well it'll be fine, except that many private schools such as mine make no profit. But I agree making better use of the private sector would've been a better plan than the punitive idea from the 80s we've got.

VAT is not punitive.

It's very telling that so many rich people are anti-paying tax.

Well that's a subjective argument isn't it? Nobody is going to win that, and thanks for the extra jeering. If you check the facts you'll find higher earners have paid a lot more tax than those eu countries people so admire and average earners pay historically low rates of tax.

But I don't think you're interested in facts.

Congratulations? Of course higher earners should pay more tax.

Paying private school fees as opposed to paying VAT or tax on savings is pretty poor imo but that's just me.

In the 1970s me and my sister went to a private school under the Direct Grant scheme. The Labour government paid for places at participating private schools by creaming off the highest achievers in each local authority and giving them free places at private schools. I think it was an attempt at social mobility. It didn't achieve that of course, except for the few children who benefited from it, and it took the highest achievers out of local state schools. It also meant we often had long and difficult journeys to school and, in my case, I lost touch with local friends from primary school and it was hard to manage friendships when living far away from the school location. We had no snobbish divide between the payers and non payers but we knew who we each were. It was an odd idea but, overall, I am happy I did it. I went out a couple of weeks ago with five old school friends and we are 64 now!

Labour got rid of the direct grant

Except it was Labour that got rid of the direct grant which enabled exactly this to happen

Who choses which state school pupils benefit? Surely the ones chosen are then given unfair advantage over those not chosen. That's against socialist principles. You can't just pick the ones going out of a hat randomly either. Because that's them being "lucky". Which is against socialist principles.

@twistyizzy and it was Labour who introduced it? Is starmer responsible for the actions of all Labour prime ministers in the past?

@Nordione1 catchment, specific SEND needs, those who need services state schools can't supply.

VAT is accepted as being regressive and forces behaviour change so this is an interesting option as it will be a tax of diminishing returns.

Please attach which post you reply to. It would be much easier and make more sense.

@twistyizzy okay so people stop sending their children to private schools. They then spend more money (and therefore pay VAT), or they save it and pay tax on the interest. Win win.

@Nordione1 the app doesn't allow me to quote a post that has already been quoted.

So basically a large % of the kids who already attend indy schools because state can't cater for them? Which is precisely the irony of this policy because their parents are forced to pay VAT purely because the state can't meet their needs

If you mean who choses who goes private, catchment will be luck of the draw or who can buy into the area. Private schools are not run for the benefit of children with SEN; they are just often used by some children with SEN due to small class sizes.

That eont happen until state schools improve across all of the UK. Currently you have some areas where state beat indy and it others were state provision is dire and kids come out with fewer than 5 GCSEs at grade 5+
You want to end indy sector? Improve ALL state schools (not just those in London) so that parents don't feel forced to use indy.
Have specialist SEN units in each state school, more PRUs, increase breadth of curriculum, increase sports, ensure all state schools provide proper setting and streaming so that every kid achieves their potential in EVERY state school.

@twistyizzy hmmm interesting. I was obviously a teenager at the time I went to private school under the Direct Grant scheme so was not as aware as I thought about which government introduced and maintained it. There were a lot of changes in governments in the 1970s! I wonder why this scheme was ever thought up and then implemented, I still think it's an odd phenomenon

Our local private school has great sport facilities. They let the state school next door use them for free.

Who is actually pro paying tax? Everyone has to pay their fair share obviously but it needs to be fair for everyone and not single out education for certain kids for idealogical reasons (unlike the rest of the World).

I always laugh at people to claim to want to pay more tax. They are either very rich and aren't struggling so won't notice, don't pay tax anyway or are idealogical loons.

@Nordione1 if it is done proportionally and to the benefit of our society I would happily pay more tax.

I'm only on a small wage at the moment but it's going to increase and I'm happy to. As long as our public services improve, which wasn't likely under the tories, who used our money to pay their mates.

That happens already. LEAs fund some children at private school. A local (mainstream, not special) private school has lots of children funded by the LEA.

@Another76543 brilliant. That should be extended throughout the country on a wide scale.

Strange, because the people who say they are happy to pay more tax aren't doing so voluntarily through the HMRC scheme. So are they just virtue signalling? If they were so keen then all they have to do is set up a direct debit