AIBU to think that Bridget Phillipson is exaggerating the level of middle-class support for VAT on school fees?

[TepidWatersOfManagedDecline]

Bridget Phillipson has been quoted as saying that the policy is supported by "middle-class parents in good professional jobs with housing costs who just can't afford that level of fee" and want "brilliant state schools". www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86wd1y7v2xo

Is this true, in your experience? Most middle-class parents with professional jobs who I’ve discussed this with think that it’s a spiteful policy (including those who don’t use the independent sector).

AIBU to think that Bridget Phillipson is exaggerating the level of support for the policy?

Yes, I understand how averages work. I referred to secondary education near me - which is significantly more than average.

My comment that, on a salary of £250k, people could choose private education if they wanted to? At no point have I said they should. I’ve said they could.

1. Insaid it would be a stretch, not that it was unaffordable
2. You have no idea of what other financi commitments we do or do not have, or how we do choose to spend our money. Perhaps we do fucking crazy shit like pay a mortgage, support family members, save for Uni for kids, pay into pensions, give to charity…

I'm sorry you don't get it. I have tried to explain. You have suggested that they don't value their children's education as they haven't prioritised that by paying for private education.

The word prioritise meaning to treat something as being very or the most important thing.

Honestly, who cares? Worth a shot, right? Obviously there’s going to have to be much more investment in general and I trust Labour to do that over the privately educated Tory twats who don’t use state schools for their own children any day.

For many (most) families, they are doing all of those things on salaries far less that a quarter of a million pounds a year. My comment wasn’t meant to be offensive, it was merely trying to highlight that not all families in private school are on huge salaries. Many are not. I think most of the population would agree that they could live quite comfortably on that level of salary. A household income of that level puts you in the top 1-2% of the population.

The sooner 99% of the population go to the local comp the better. It will do wonders for a more equal society. Finland has very few private schools and has one of the happiest countries in the world. I know it’s not all an our schools but it’s a start!

And this issue doesn’t really need debate. We’ve tried the present system for decades, and the 7% of kids who get that education get most of the best jobs, let’s try things a different way.

I think people are defensive. I think they feel you can prioritise education without spending on it so it's offensive to suggest that only by spending are you prioritising education and that other people aren't also prioritising education.

But I understood you to mean that when people with a 250k income looked at thier discretionary spending they prioritised spending on private education over spending on other discretionary items and that others with that high level of income could also make it a spending priority if they wanted.

Oh shush. Private schools are used by rhe wealthy. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
what I have discovered, as someone from poverty now in the top % of earners is that there a lot of well off MC/UMC people who are incredibly well off even wealthy who don’t think they are.

The best jobs are not just offered to children born and educated in Britain anymore, jobs are offered to the best, increasingly those from overseas. Finland has a language barrier, England less so. Worth bearing in mind. Borders are increasingly fluid and competition for the best is global, there are outward and inward flows. Of money and people.

So... I am such a person and on paper I'm supportive. And then I realised the competition for one of the schools DD is aiming for (super-selective girls state in all the best schools lists) will now be even more fierce. But... the reason our local schools are so mediocre is largely down to underfunding so...

Yes I am supportive!

That’s precisely what I was saying. I probably should have used the word “choose” rather than ‘prioritise’. What I meant by ‘prioritise” was that some families would see it as more important to spend that money on education rather than a holiday for example. That might be because they have had a poor experience in other schools, it might be for other reasons. It doesn’t really matter. Everyone makes their own decisions.

I was state educated. My parents placed great importance on a decent education even though they weren’t paying for it. I would also say that I would definitely choose some state schools over some private schools. I am not a person who thinks that an education is only good if you pay for it. Some state education is excellent (not enough though). Some private education is dire.

“what I have discovered, as someone from poverty now in the top % of earners is that there a lot of well off MC/UMC people who are incredibly well off even wealthy who don’t think they are.”

I think we are agreeing with each other! My point is that a salary of £250k makes you well off and able to make choices.

I suppose it depends how you define posh.

I'm supportive. So are all our friends with a single exception. Those with kids at private grimace slightly (who actually wants to pay tax) but accept it.

The only friend I have who is against it is a 'private is the only option' parent. Would never consider state. Considers it the politics of envy. I value her friendship but we don't discuss politics.

That sounds pretty posh!

You’ve nailed it! So true. We just don’t have the money (London) to move into a catchment for an amazing state school. Poss if we had girls. Good state secondaries for boys are rare.

It was much cheaper and easier for us to pay for Private than move house into the catchment of a supposedly "good" Secondary for DD.We then would have also had to find a good State Primary for DS (the one he was at was great) and hope there was a place for him.

Build it and they will come.

@LizzieSiddal completely agree.

i read on another thread that there is already a council paying private school fees on behalf of parents who quit private and wanted a state place that was not available. So council are paying ££££££ to send the kids back to the private school they were at.

I can see this point but there are far more children with send being funded by LAs to attend the many private send schools that are popping up. As a result of Tory policy that saw huge delays with funding desperately needed new LA send schools.

There just no money. Labour's policy to boost "inclusion" is going to struggle - I can't even begin to describe the kind of training, support and attitude needed for the level of additionally resourced units that would really meet need. I have read far too many anonymous posts in senior leadership fb groups describing how they're struggling with the behaviour and additional needs of a large number of their reception children.

I'm in a send school and we are also starting to struggle- we are full but pupils keep coming via tribunals and we don't have the room to accommodate needs as effectively as we did a decade ago.

Some SALT and OT services are operating with twice the case load of two decades ago with the same amount of funding.

It would be very useful to have some data to hand with discussions like this.

How many children with SEND are currently being paid for by LAs to attend private schools?

How many ex private school pupils are being funded by LAs?

How many children are now being home educated due to poor experiences with education/ send and no suitable settings available?

Also the projected school population for the next decade based on births (which are apparently dropping).

Yup! Give it another 5 years and MN will be full of MC parent extolling the virtues of state over private.

Other than NI, that is all carried over from the Tories. They've been in power under 6 months. No, they can't do everything immediately

I don't think you are being unreasonable. My kids started out at state and we moved them to private due to massive class sizes. Our middle boy was born prematurely and has mild learning difficulties. He couldn't get the support he needed in the state school. Around 50% of the kids at their new School are SEN. We are middle class and the School our kids go to is far from Eton but massively helps those kids with extra needs. I wholeheartedly think the state sector needs more funding but you do not rob Peter to pay Paul. This isn't a tax break that is being removed. It is an extra tax. Nowhere else in the EU taxes education. Nowhere! Even if you agree fundamentally with the policy, introducing it part way through a School year is just vindicative and not helpful to anyone. I have never voted Tory in my life, I was state educated (I was lucky to go to a very good State school - not everyone has that good fortune) but this policy is just mean spirited and will cost the economy more than it saves. Private school parents pay through tax for spaces in the state sector that they don't use. Make state schools better by all means...don't take away this vital part of the education system though. Unfortunately I fear we are all going to be poorer under this incompetent Govt who are not the solution to the idiots they replaced. Led by donkeys!

Where parents cannot afford private now, expect great jostling for prime position to get into the best state schools as described above. Plenty of MC people were doing it anyway. It’s all about getting ahead. It’s mostly about money. It’s rarely about improving the worst schools the MC don’t want. Labour won’t manage it either. Money doesn’t improve the dc at a school enough to make it a school to aspire to. Neither will the paltry amount this tax makes enable anything worthwhile. Not a chance. It will just pay off striking teachers.