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?

Also I do wonder if extra time shouldn't just be scrapped as an exam concession. I would say that's driving any over diagnosis in the private sector. Though it tends to be of things such as slow processing speed. I feel like all exams should allow enough time to be answered properly for everyone. If they still need to differentiate they can do it based on making some of the questions extremely difficult rather than based on speed. And they can stick in word limits for the essay writing subjects.

Which LEA are you, if you don't mind me asking? Ours is known as being universally awful re SEN provision, even with an EHCP.

The type of classes you're describing would be perfect for DS.

We are in South Bucks - primary has pretty good SEN provision, but secondary is more challenging.

The need is definitely there, possibly not at every school, but definitely in every area.

Children that can manage in a mainstream private school will not get an EHCP.
The state will not pay for a private education for your son - think you might need to pay for this yourself.

These aren't true. Some DC in independent MS can and do have EHCPs, including having the school named in section I and the fees and SEP funded by the LA. It isn’t just independent SS that can be funded via an EHCP.

An EHCP's primary purpose is to ensure that the education provided allows them to achieve the absolute most they're capable of, with support and / or adjustments

Case law shows there’s actually no legal duty for LAs to educate a child to his or her maximum potential.

Do you have any evidence for your collective smearing of private schools “gaming” the system rather than trying to do their best to support their SEN students? Or is this just prejudice/ideology?

The idea that parents of private students can access assessors and diagnosis at the drop of a hat - is super naive slash ignorant.

“Reduce staffing levels” = making staff redundant.

Does “private schools make 20% of their staff redundant to pay extra tax” sound like a progressive policy that will result in a higher tax take overall? You know that private school teachers are ordinary people who aren’t massively wealthy, don’t you?

“Make teachers redundant in order to pay more tax” - put like that it doesn’t sound like an easy windfall tax, does it? But that’s essentially what you’re suggesting.

If you wanted to slap VAT on university fees, would you say that Oxbridge should just cut staff to absorb the cost and that would be a great way of raising money? Would that sound like it was a great way to drive up standards in the local ex-poly, or would it sound like a daft policy that would create more problems than it solved and certainly not bring in a lovely problem free chunk of extra cash for all?

I’m not convinced that extra time really makes a material difference to exam performance other than reducing stress.

You've inadvertently landed on the perfect analogy.

Oxbridge charges the same fees as post-1992 unis, yet delivers (allegedly) a better end product. Why? Because of its intake, in part. But not because it gets more money per person.

In the same way, given their intake, private schools should be able to deliver superior results to state schools even when they only match the per child funding (plus a bit extra for profit).

And yes, of course they should be making teachers redundant to cut costs. Redundancies are sad but if you're running an unprofitable business you've got to do it.

Have you tried doing an exam paper in braille? It takes longer to read and the page numbers often mess up.

All provision is challenging here (Sefton), sadly!

The Warnock Report totally reframed SEN and many special schools closed. There were many special departments opened in mainstream schools to replace them. Except that ideal has proved impossible to deliver. Excellence is difficult to find. Especially with the huge increase in need (that’s another story) it’s impossible for every school to deliver what every DC needs. Private schools with better resources can do a better job. I still think separate units in schools with sen staff do a better job but money means only a few schools could have them. Choice is virtually eliminated. Every child matters is just not possible unless someone pays. However paying even more tax hampers growth. We know that so we need to build the economy. Labour don’t know how to. Taking money from private parents is a drop in the ocean. Just mean and misguided and unpleasant for the DC.

Sure I can. Big difference about being able and not wanting to as I am beyond caring. As I have now said twice.

But thanks for the goad.

Really? If you have a processing disorder where your brain takes longer to grasp what the question is (as per my DS), then extra time makes all the difference. He also struggles to write quickly due to physical comorbidity often seen with ASD.

@mirabai I think that it does in some subjects. There is one paper I teach at A Level that is time pressured (I feel time pressured myself when I do practice questions which is silly as they could just cut down the volume of questions and make a couple of them more difficult) and extra time therefore means an advantage. Also I think some of the essay writing subjects. I can still remember the aching hand from A Level English Lit.

There is also a big problem with some of the University entrance exams like the ucat being horribly time pressured and extra time therefore conferrring an an advantage.

I think all exam papers should be designed not to be overly time pressured and all students should have access to extra time to avoid stress. They can leave quietly if they have finished after the reccomended time. It would probably need word limits to avoid increasing the marking burden and forcing examiners to wade through pages of waffle.

In this way there is no perceived advantage to a SEND diagnosis, other obviously than having SEND and needing support.

Obviously however if you don't know the stuff then extra time isn't any help at all.

I've not followed the whole train of thought here fully, but ehcps aren't really provided on the reasonable adjustment basis as schools are supposed to follow the equalities act without the need for ehcps. They look at other bits of legislation like the education act, human rights act and the send code of practice.

They look at what a child needs to access a suitable full time education. If all the professionals decide a child needs 100k of stuff, it's what they get (Although some thought is given to whether its detrimental to the efficient education of others to allow refusal for mainstream). It gets scrutinised and it really has to be a need (not just a would be nice) and it's for a suitable/adequete education not the best possible education
Sorry if I have misunderstood the chain of replies here and given a load of irrelevant info.

You don't think that Oxbridge's additonal funding from endowments, international and masters students and research might also have had an impact?

That said I think they are starting to struggle now as well. I read a recent article where they were underpaying phd students (below minimum wage) to do a lot of the actual teaching.

With EHCPs, for the placement, it isn’t just looking at what is adequate. What is appropriate has to be considered, not just what is adequate. This is covered by case law.

Different universities have different income levels so the oxbridge analogy doesn't work. They don't just rely on the 9.5k teaching income.

Unfortunately for you, I’m also a trustee of an Oxbridge college, so I haven’t “just landed” on the perfect analogy. Universities aren’t businesses either, but charities regulated by the CC (Oxbridge colleges) or exempt charities (other universities). FYI, the cost of educating a student at Oxford or Cambridge is more than double the 9+k fees: the rest simply gets paid for by the colleges’ and universities’ own funds and endowments, and by a lot of low- or un-paid work done by academics and non-academic staff.

So yes it does work by having more money per capita; and if you told Oxbridge to charge students VAT on fees and absorb the cost, a fair number of young academics and non-academic admin staff would just get made redundant.

Would that then result in a great tax take to improve the rest of the university sector, or would cutting costs in one area of the sector just be a really stupid and poorly thought through way of trying to raise more money overall?

That's what I meant by suitable . I couldn't remember the wording used. I knew it wasn't best possible. Thanks for making it clearer

That's the great thing about paying for the child with SEND to go to an private school instead. The other parents at the private school contribute to the cost of reducing the class size through their fees.

If you look at the cost of the State education place plus the cost of a TA or other provision it is probably a cheaper solution though it definitely wouldn't suit all students.

Just as private schools are profligate, wasting money on specialist teachers when none are needed, Oxbridge colleges are profligate, wasting money on tiny tutorials when larger, university-wide ones would be just as, or more, effective.

In both cases, the institution thinks they are doing something magical with their money, by doing teaching in a different way to others. In fact, in both cases, they just have a great intake; they could teach in larger class sizes with worse teachers and it would still be alarming if they didn't get much better results than their peers.

The whole thing is just institutionalised waste masquerading as the magic elixir of education.

This is complete nonsense, a made-up fantasy of yours. You clearly have zero knowledge of the university sector or of how university finances work.

One of the reasons the small group teaching works is that students write up to two long essays per week to discuss in detail in the tutorial. Would the academics teaching these larger classes (we also have seminars and lectures, btw) be able to mark and discuss these for 30 students in a class? (Takes 30-60 min each to mark).

No? Well, we could turn Oxbridge into exactly the same as other universities are — cut loads of staff, seminars of 30, no weekly essays — does that make sense? Should we get rid of the colleges and do you think then everyone gets a better deal? (They are private foundations - they would just get wound up. The money would not go into the rest of the sector.) Is that good for our country’s overall education system or for the students? Wouldn’t we then just lose more money from all our top universities, our internationally competitive status, lots of research money, and so on? Bang goes another sector of the economy for some daft envy politics?

I experienced it, it doesn't 'work', it's just one way of doing things that they are wedded to.

It's expensive; if it's a struggle to deliver it, don't deliver it. Adapt and do better with less. The intake allows it. They're just wedded to one idea without any evidence it's better than others.

As I said, when you have a good intake, you don't have to do all these special fripperies.