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?

We have several children in the family with extra needs (autism, brain injury, severe dyslexia). Over 3 generations at different times we (whole family/extended family) have used the private system to rescue those children when things have been really desperate. The fight to get support for children in the state system can be expensive and exhausting in many parts of the country. I very much doubt that putting VAT on fees is going to be more than a drop in the bucket given the problems that exist. It is the small independent schools that are a lifeline and they are the ones that will close.

@Bushmillsbabe Have you ever looked at what a top private school offers DC? I always find that many posters say they don’t boost exam results (over a good state they don’t) but you will see a whole lot more offered to DC beyond teaching and exam results. Often the schools are calmer and we found much more in tune with individual DC. The breadth and quality of the wider education available was very noticeable. Not necessarily more than an elite grammar school but definitely more than a sausage factory comp. There’s a big difference and anyone valued that.

The other thing I very much valued was a lack of rules. Good habits were fostered and dc were held to high standards of behaviour. It evolved naturally and detentions just didn’t happen. Dc respected each other, supported each other and respected staff. It was a strong community.

I do think some people are jealous that others can afford something and want to take it away from them. My DDs didn’t take up places in sought after state schools so hopefully someone else got the spaces and benefitted. I don’t think I met anyone at the private school who just went there to get better exam results or a leg up. Most parents didn’t need this for dc. They just wanted dc to be happy.

I think people who are suggesting that it is the answer to state school struggles are those who trying to fight it by saying it isn't going to produce enough money if any at all etc etc ...They do this by suggesting everyone thinks it's the answer to state school problems and don't believe it is. These people are on the whole parents of private school children who object to the policy. I have not seen any state school parents suggest that it is the answer to all the problems in state education..

Most people recognise it is not the answer to state school struggles much more needs to be done. Many people see it in ideologically terms than rather financial gains for state schools.

Most people either don't care enough about this policy or are in general agreement with it. As I said further up thread the views of people tend to be massively influenced by whether they have skin in the game...

I have one child with HFA. I took her out of primary school for year 5 and 6 because she was being driven insane by the chaos and noise level in the classroom. It was never going to be addressed by the school. She came back into a state grammar school (another controversial issue, I know) and achieved very good results. She is never going to be able to work full time, she will always need support, but those 2 years we did manage (and struggled) to pay for were worth it, because I think she would have been suicidal otherwise.

Bush mills babe, you’re instincts are right on this and this is the real ‘fudge’ in my opinion. The reality is that this IS ideologically driven. Equality of Outcomes is a tenent of far left ideologues. Unfortunately unless you are able to wrest good luck, genes, and ‘minus’ advantage in all the myriad ways it manifests in people (by force if necessary ?) we are struck with inequality of outcomes. The fudge is that the Labour government will not be able to magic up extra teachers and the economic gains are doubtful and they must know that? The ideology is obviously against private schools because they represent a threat to the idea of a socialist (from the cradle to the grave) state. They represent choice. No one is suggesting that tertiary or universities are dodging tax and that this form of learning (piano lessons, private tutoring etc) should have 20% VAT attached . The argument is inconsistent.
It is not a rational one but an ideological one.
Why rush the legislation in ?
One commentator pointed out that there was more consultation time given when adjusting sugar regulation. Again, it is ideological. Labour is opposed to the idea of private education. Therefore there is no need to be compassionate about children uprooted, families stressed and no need to give time for children in the middle of a specific exam schedule or curriculum. It must be done because it is part of their belief system. The ends - the diminishing of the private system and the hope of abolishing this system - justifies the means.
We can of course debate whether this is because Starmer is a Pabloite Trotskyist but it certainly seems as if in common with a pretty left wing view he resents people having choice. The bung to the politcal centre left is the appearance of doing something for state schools. I would argue that this is going to be fairly illusory. And that is the real shame. Lots of upset, a callousness towards a generation of kids already impacted by Covid lockdowns no matter what their backgrounds, and not much to show for the much needed investment for state schools along with the shutting down of things like scholarships and diminishing of choice, a dumbing down of the curriculum in total seems certain with the new advisor for the curriculum.
One final point : I will never have the money to own a farm, I have never owned a farm but I really care that someone can pass on their farm to enthused-to-farm offspring. There are things in society that benefit us in indirect ways and ways that we may not always fathom (knowledge for knowledge sake - learning Latin?) Abolishing them because not everyone is able to access them in an immediate sense does not raise up us. Better to turn our attention to raising up the standards of state schools so thoroughly that no one needs to use a private school and preference to do so is genuinely reduced (if that is your bent).

@privatenonamegiven it was a manifesto policy by the labour government aimed at improving state school education, they placed a huge focus on it, which distracts from addressing the real issues.

My only 'skin in the game' is that I want to see real concrete change in state schools and would prefer that the government focused their energies and money on this than fighting legal battles to try to push through an ideological change which is unlikely to create any immediate improvement for my children.

The majority of people really do not expect this policy to improve state education. However I do think that many approve of the policy simply because a private school is a business and should pay the required amount of VAT. Its not envy - just pay the VAT and stop hiding behind 'charitable status'. Private education is a choice, free education exists for all. I have a child with SEN and find the martyrs on here a bit hard to swallow (I scrimp and save, I have no pension..). You choose to opt out - pay the increase.

I have not seen any state school parents suggest that it is the answer to all the problems in state education

I haven’t seen anyone suggest it’s the answer to all the problems in the state system on either side. But I’ve certainly seen state school parents who think it will make a difference in state education.

@redwinechocolateandsnacks and if your child is thriving or even managing in state, that's brilliant. My "choice" is to take on significant debt or give up my teaching job to look after my EBSA suffering kids at home. It is wrong to state that free education exists for all. It simply doesn't, currently and this will do nothing to change that.

We can of course debate whether this is because Starmer is a Pabloite Trotskyist

We could but he went to a private school nonetheless (it converted from state 2 years after his arrival) his fees were then paid by the council until the 6th form when he got a bursary to cover them.

Spot on 👌

What difference do they think it will make, and how?

Beautifully put. Couldn’t agree more.

And it is entirely appropriate the council did pay his fees. His parents chose a school for him, the council/government then changed the goalposts by making it private, he shouldn't have to move schools due to a change brought in after he started.

But now, we have children who started a school, and now the goalposts have been changed, and for those already in a school, their council should also pay the difference until the end of that school phase.

However, I somehow doubt Starmer will afford the sane privilege he had to others

Indeed..there are a number of ways this could have been done to make it less punitive...Sept 25 for a start not Jan, applicable from next point of entry would be another. The fact that neither of these has been undertaken or any sort of due diligence on numbers if kids affected is appalling.

Maybe Labour should be honest then and say it is ideological….they are the ones who are portraying the policy as the answer to problems in State schools.

All these online agitators busy agreeing with eachother about how much they hate labour and labour policy.

The government didn’t make the school private, they simply abolished selection, and the school chose that over becoming a comprehensive. The grammar school that my mother taught at went comprehensive.

He was lucky that the council agreed and that the school was wealthy enough to establish generous bursaries to pay for his 6th from. He could have simply moved to the local newly non-selective state school.

Covering fees is certainly not a choice this government would have made as you observe.

Agreed.

It benefits the individual poster at the cost of thousands of pounds a year to the taxpayer. Many will, understandably be doing the same. How is that beneficial to the state education system or the general population? Examples such as this show how the policy is short sighted and pointless.

In response to your original question op, in my experience most of my MC friends, and myself, support this move. Though I caveat that by saying that it really isn't a huge thing on anyone's agenda.

Even as far away from farming life as I am, I can see that it’s for the good of countryside that we maintain stewardship, rural culture and national food security, it benefits all of us, if farming families can inherit their farms with enough land left to continue to farm on.

The outcomes will be the farm broken up, sold off in part or whole and the land turned into housing, located nowhere near amenities that people need to live. Causing a whole new cohort of car commuters. Displacing farming families who barely make a living and do a bloody hard job.

i can only assume the government have come up with this to be able to say they are helping housebuilding. Doesn’t matter how poorly sited and environmentally and socially destructive that building is. How badly it affects food UK production. What other housing support costs it then incurs.

How can the government just bring these things in with so little scrutiny and discussion? No plan for the people it really affects badly, just saying ‘most of you will cope’. Silence, about those who can’t?

I believe the government knew full well they would always implement it in Jan. I would question why they ever suggested it would not be until September. I presume at least part of this was so that fewer people pre-paid this academic year in full, avoiding the VAT. Lots of parents didn’t trust them and pre-paid anyway, so they won’t be getting anywhere near the tax receipts they think this year (especially as input VAT can be claimed from Jan).

Latest polling has 54% in favour of policy, 22% opposed

So a little over a fifth of the population are opposed… perhaps they are disproportionately represented in the people you discuss the issue with OP?
https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/dec/31/labours-private-school-tax-plan-strongly-backed-by-public-poll-shows

Most of the parents I know educate privately and the policy is an annoyance at best. A few changed their vote as a result. Fees increase on an annual basis, and I'm sure some schools will salivate at the opportunity to hike fees by 20% and place the blame elsewhere.

The moaning on here has been off the scale though, I've actually found it counter-productive and laughable. I think the campaign against this has been useless, you'd have thought the independent school sector could have got a better lobbying team in.