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?

His approach may have raised grades. But that’s only one measure of success. The number of children now experiencing poor mental health and EBSA suggests that the current system is not succeeding for all.

To answer the original question, I’d say pretty much everyone I know is either in favour of VAT on fees or indifferent.

New poll on the VAT reported in the Guardian:

“The poll, commissioned by the Private Education Policy Forum (PEPF) thinktank, found that 54% of people backed the idea, with 22% opposing it. This is an even greater margin of support than seen in similar polls carried out before the election.
In the run-up to the start of the policy there has been repeated attacks by the Conservatives and from voices in rightwing newspapers, with one accusing the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, of being motivated by “class envy”.

The polling of more than 2,000 people showed wider disquiet with the status quo, with 57% saying they found the overall private education system to be unfair and 22% disagreeing.
It also showed strong support for the idea of UK private schools being obliged to open a quarter of their places for free to local children, to improve social mixing”

This is exactly what I think. We have three kids, we decided that we won't be paying VAT on education out of principal, as we would already be saving the taxpayer a substantial sum by not taking up a place in a state school. The money which would have gone on education will be paid into our pension or spent on several foreign holidays each year. This means that our money will be leaving the country, and that is very bad for the economy. If our money had been spent on education, then it would have largely stayed in the UK. This is because independent schools employ a lot of staff, whose salaries are taxed and then primarily spent in the UK economy. The cost to the taxpayer in our scenario is around 60k a year, although according to Labour’s figures, they only count the 21k cost of educating our 3 kids in the state sector. I think if people knew the true cost of this policy, then they would be less likely to support it.

‘The money which would have gone on education will be paid into our pension or spent on several foreign holidays each year.’

seems sensible and the holidays will no doubt enrich your kids experience.

But you do understand that the policy only makes any sense at all if parents don’t do this? If enough parents move into state that the cost of educating their kids outweighs the VAT gain it becomes a net cost to the taxpayer, and then state schools (and the taxpayer) will be worse off than before.

You do get this … right?

Nope, they're too intent on calling people opposed to the policy 'sheeple'. I'm not sure that's somebody with a considered opinion.

If we're calling people names like sheeple then it seems to me that those who support this policy due to the many varied illogical and fallacious reasons reasons given on here would be the targets. It's hardly surprising that a majority of a random poll support it.."should some other people I don't know pay more for something I know nothing about in order to benefit me?"
On this thread we've had "diamond shoes", "private schools' sole aim is to entrench privilege", "it's a start to improve state", "PS parents can easily afford another 3k", "PS schools all select their intake by academic tests" and various other statements which clearly demonstrate a total ignorance of the sector and what it can offer and what this policy will actually achieve. The comments on how "everyone has a free choice" is likewise erroneous as I and others have explained upthread. But let's not have facts get in the way of a good bit of "bash 'the rich' " shall we? 🙄

Reading the responses on this thread I am more convinced than ever that this is a great policy.

The panic in the air is palpable.

I would say the opposite. My children both in state primary so the changes don't impact on me, but I have asked the supporters on here time and time again for specific quantified evidence of the expected improvements in state schools from this policy - such as how much extra funding per state school pupil, what impact this will have etc, and no one has come up with anything.

My concern is that we are placing our hopes of significant improvements in state schools on a policy with no substance or clarity, and our children deserve better than that. It feels ideological rather than practical.

The word "lucky" has been used a lot on these threads.."those lucky enough to be able to afford it". You know who I think are lucky? Those with NT, confident kids who can not only manage but thrive in any state school, or those with LAs who haven't dodged their responsibilities to provide appropriate support for those that need it. Let's not pretend that there is any level playing field out there. There are endless ways in which some people are more lucky than others and we all have to do what we can to help our children make the best of whatever their circumstances are. Making that 20% harder for one small group in a way that won't actually help anyone else is not only pointless but transparently vindictive ..a fact that some of the attitudes on here have shown very clearly.

‘Lucky’ is very subjective. There are plenty of people who don’t think private schools are better for children, and plenty who think it’s a waste of money and plenty who think both.

Try having a child with SEN in a state school without adequate support who hasn’t got parents who can fight the system I see this all the time as a college teacher when they’re spat out by the system at 16! Then you can talk about lucky…

I don’t think Gove’s curriculum is responsible for young people’s poor mental health.

The covid lockdowns and social media seem far more likely.

“The panic in the air is palpable.”

That can be interpreted both ways. Rather desperate press offerings from those in charge pending the court case as well…

Absolutely agree with you, it's all very subjective and individual. What is better for 1 child would be worse for another. My brother thrived in private after having a horrific time in state. I was fortunate that i was bright enough and motivated enough that I would have done well anywhere, it absolutely would have been a waste of money to send me private, not that my parents could have afforded to anyway, my mum worked nights to fund my brothers subsidised place which cost them about 3-4k a year in the 1990's.

We are all just trying to do our best for our children and no one should try to bring anyone down for doing that.

There’s as assumption on these threads that if you could afford private schools- ‘lucky’- that of course you would send your kids.
i’m just pointing out that there are more people who don’t want their kids to because they don’t think they’re ‘better’ schools or experiences.

@Dearover
I would quite happily pay more in taxes. For some reason though this proves unpopular with most of the population.

You can pay more tax:
This is from the Guardian:
Susan Reynolds (Letters, 28 September) says: “I want to pay more tax for the public services I enjoy.” She might be relieved to know that she may do so simply by sending a cheque to HMRC. I understand that you can even specify where you would like to see that money spent.

Are you going to pay more tax now you know it’s possible?

And they are absolutely entitled to think that @Blabadder
What they aren't entitled to tell people whose thoughts or experience differ that they are wrong. Because they aren't.

I would be interested though, in all those who are so keen on 'equality' and 'improving state education' as reasons to back his policy, what else they have done to help these things happen in their local area. Or is this just something that private school parents need to make happen for state school children by paying more of their money to help our children, or move their sharp elbows into state schools to help our children.

Or, and here is a novel idea - how about we as state school parents, take positive actions to improve our own schools for our own children?

@Blabadder I don't disagree. I don't think all private schools are automatically better for all kids, but for those that are, why is it felt so important to make accessing them harder when it won't help the struggling state sector? Ive taught in both, I know both and the problems different kinds of kids face.

Opponents can't have it both ways..either they are better, give an advantage and promote inequality or they aren't necessarily better and there's a perfectly acceptable free alternative. Or, secret option number three, different schools suit different kids and as far as possible, the gov should help all kids access the setting that allows them to thrive, not get in their way.

This is true the problem is some parents are better and more successful at this than others, hence the government needs to and must do better if they are really keen on improving opportunities for all.

This is why many see this policy as something they are ideologically in favour of even if it’s doesn’t bring in much money.

Some of the support for this policy seems driven by spite rather than people thinking this will raise sufficient amounts to make meaningful differences to state education - sticking it to the 'rich'. This isn't actually going to hurt people who are wealthy. The people who are going to be hurt are the families budgeting for school places within middle class budgets very similar to those of the people supporting this policy (and probably with considerably less wealth than the people designing and implementing the policy). All the references to diamond shoes and skiing holidays rather emphasise that this isn't about a meaningful improvement to state education, but about bitterness and spite. Something like a sliding payment scale would have been more equitable, I think.

I think you’re misrepresenting people here, more like anger at the unfairness in society.. funny that those with the opportunities always portray those without as being envious or jealous of others.

It may be the exception in your area. But that doesn’t mean it’s the exception in other areas. I know of two families who had to fight (for years) to get ECHPs from
the relevant councils. The children were absolutely entitled to one. Dire need in one case and led to the child being effectively excluded. One family had a parent in the legal profession and yet still had to employ legal counsel to push the issue and get it resolved. The other family also had to employ legal advice. It is not as straight forward for all families as you suggest. Although it’s great that you had a better experience.

But the issue is that it's being portrayed as the answer to state school struggles, when it's not. And all the time we are relying on something ineffective, we are failing our children by not doing something effective.

My 5 year old doesn't care that the child 4 doors down from us now cannot afford private school and is moving into state, she (and we) care that in real terms the funding her school has under this government is less, rather than more than the previous one. That the TA who was giving her some individual support has retired and not been replaced as her school can't afford this with the raise in teacher salaries and employer NI contributions which hasn't been fully funded by this government.