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?

"Those that have it, don't make a profit and plough all their resources into bettering the education they provide"

They've ploughed their resources into reducing staff pupil ratios to roughly half those of state schools.

In addition to often providing lavish learning resources.

Is it outrageous to suggest then that as charities maybe they should cut costs to absorb the cost of VAT for any of their pupils who are struggling?

Or do education charities have more responsibility to maintain the lavishness of their resources for their most privileged pupils who don't want any changes?

Yes exactly. Precisely what I and others have been saying for months and on numerous threads. But no-one wants to hear it because it's much more fun to ramble on about "equality" when this is no such thing...just an attempt to level down.

I’d prefer them not to be given financial advantages and tax breaks for being something they are not. Private schools have brought this on themselves, and they know it.

@Juliagreeneyes

This is the dictionary definition of a charity:

"an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."

Which is ironic given that the main purpose of private schools is to entrench privilege.

“A “spokesman for Oxfordshire County Council said: “Schools are unlikely to offer places while children prepare for their final GCSE exams.
“We haven’t amended our admission arrangements in the light of the VAT in independent schools issue. The arrangements have remained the same for a while.”

How can it be legal to charge VAT on school fees for years 10 & 11 when the Councils and many academies will refuse to take these children? Because apparently they do different exam boards.

Either the state guarantees all children leaving the private sector a state funded place within a few weeks OR the policy is simply illegal. As if they do not give the state school place, they have surely breached the fundamental right of the child to an education.

I hope they lose in court for all DCs with SEND and all DCs currently in Years 10, 11, 12 and 13. That is the only logical outcome to me.

Maybe you should come and look at the PS I teach at. It's far from lavish. Old, crumbling buildings with crap heating and WiFi for a start. We have high staff costs because we are all, contrary to popular belief, very well qualified in our specialism and there are enough of us to share the workload so we have smaller classes and can give more time and attention per head. We are not selective and have a wide range of ability. In that sense it is "better" for those kids who require such support. Many many don't and get on fabulously in great state schools but again, this myth that all PS are Eton is a poisonous lie supported by the media that fuels this toxic debate.

The legal definition is different and your second statement is simply wrong.

"ramble on about "equality" when this is no such thing...just an attempt to level down."

If the result of this is children competing for the best university places and jobs on a more equal education playing field, then that is a move towards equality.

Sigh.

From the Charity Commission website:

The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:

• (a) the prevention or relief of poverty
• (b)the advancement of education
• (c) the advancement of religion
• (d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives
• (e) the advancement of citizenship or community development
• (f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
• (g) the advancement of amateur sport
• (h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
• (i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
• (j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
• (k) the advancement of animal welfare
• (l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
• (m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-makes-a-charity-cc4/what-makes-a-charity-cc4#part-3

So very glad to hear that you will be singlehandedly getting rid of all of charity law and the charity sector because of your “dictionary definition”. Are you planning to defund the arts, sports funding, the church, donkey sanctuaries, air ambulances and the National Trust now, or do they get any reprieve?

@RhaenysRocks

My second statement is entirely correct.

Oh come on. You must know the total education budget. Even if the VAT policy does raise the amount that Labour say it will, it’s a tiny, tiny % of the overall education budget. And that’s a big if. But £3K, £6k etc can be a large amount for one family.

@Juliagreeneyes

I'm now fully invested in following your posts on this thread to see if you introduce every one with a patronising 'Sigh'.

And if it ends up that the very richest private schools and parents get an even greater advantage compared to the state sector, will you still be all for it?

Only the ones that can’t be bothered to do any basic research and just recycle lazy tropes that are legally and factually untrue. Hth!

"Oh come on. You must know the total education budget. Even if the VAT policy does raise the amount that Labour say it will, it’s a tiny, tiny % of the overall education budget."

Maybe they should increase it.

"But £3K, £6k etc can be a large amount for one family"

So why aren't you arguing for private schools to reduce costs? They can obviously afford to, if state schools can provide an education for half what most private schools are charging.

So governments around the world should be able to control the curriculum and parents should be forced to send their children to state schools? I think we can all come up with the names of a few countries round the world where this would be a very bad idea indeed.

Many of them are doing everything they can but the only meaningful way to reduce costs is to make people redundant and I don’t want that. I have one in state and one in private and I can absolutely see where all the additional money goes. The main thing is much smaller classes and I don’t want them to be any larger. My privately educated DC wouldn’t be able to cope, that’s why he’s there in the first place.

Oh and I can pay the extra. Got myself a substantial pay rise by changing jobs but I am not so up my own arse to believe that everyone can do that.

And here we go around again - staff salaries are the biggest expense in any school - so you think private schools should make staff redundant to absorb the costs, likely the only way to make savings of 20%?

Are these staff themselves rich and privileged and deserve to lose their jobs? What will getting rid of them do to the economy? Will the economy then also lose the tax and NI they pay? What happens if we offset that loss against the expected tax take from the VAT? (Remember that VAT is not actually hypothecated, contrary to the impression the govt want to give - it all just goes into the main public budget.)

Would you like to provide some evidence? I mean actual, quantifiable evidence that there is a plot amongst the 21st Century PS in the UK to entrench privilege. Please do link to the mission statements that say that, or infer it. Please do try not to JUST use the top dozen famous ones but at least some of the many many that get by with very tight margins and provide a lifeboat for the many SEN or bullied kids failed by the state but who are able to manage in the quieter, smaller environs. The ones that are threatened by this.

@izimbra sorry my last post was in reference to your statement about the purpose of PS being to entrench privilege.

@Juliagreeneyes You are obviously invested in this issue - and so am I. But I think it proves - as my posts aren’t responded to (child with SEND in state) - and yours are (as you’re so vocal and in favour of PS) - the issues only affect a small minority and thus the populous don’t care about this issue.

if state schools can provide an education for half what most private schools are charging

State schools can’t provide an education on that amount though. They, and the Labour Party, are telling us that state education needs huge extra additional investment. They are saying that they can’t provide a decent education on their current budgets.

Judging by the very frequent despairing threads from state school teachers on MN, state schools are struggling to provide even the most basic education on current funding. Teachers frequently mention buying their own stationery supplies and working all hours to try to keep up with the demands of the job. What's needed is an absolutely enormous increase in funding, combined with a culture shift to value education and teaching. Putting VAT on school fees won't even touch the sides of what's needed.

I’m no cheerleader for private schools - I’ve spent my life helping state school kids to access university. I think this policy is a poisonous piece of counterproductive rubbish that will have the opposite effect that Labour claim. I’m also sad that after a lifetime as a Labour voter, supporter and even member I can no longer support them. It’s not remotely the vision for education that we need - it’s just spiteful nonsense that ruins an important principle of public life (no taxation on education) for no real gain.

And the populace lap it up precisely because it’s spiteful - just as the voters did with the child benefit cap and the bedroom tax. It’s all about punishing other people you don’t like — as this thread shows very clearly.

‘Either the state guarantees all children leaving the private sector a state funded place within a few weeks OR the policy is simply illegal.’

sorry duck, not the way it works. The onus is on parents to apply for school places, with if certain time frames, and any movement mid year falls outside that.
Marching into the local council in your too tight diamond encrusted shoes demanded to be given a place in the best school in the county isn’t going to work.
plenty of places though… might just take a little while. Doesn’t help that the LAs don’t actually know who really needs places and who’s just applying to make a point.