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?

And how many of those 54% actually understand it. We have seen people on here believing that state schools have to pay VAT but private schools didn’t (when actually it’s the other way round - state schools have always been able to reclaim input VAT unlike private schools). Then there are those that actually believe that the taxpayer is subsidising private schools. Another load of rubbish. There is also continual confusion between VAT and charitable stays when one has nothing to do with the other. The Government are gaslighting the general public with their “tax break” language and most people fall for it.

Legal representation to appeal to SENDIST to get an EHCP isn’t essential. The majority of parents don’t have representation.

As demonstrated by a PP in the post above, as she seems to think this is to do with the schools paying VAT and also charitable status. Showing a total misunderstanding of what the policy is about and proving that this is supported due to ideology, not an actual understanding of what the policy is.

I have no skin in this game, or farming (other than as a consumer of produce from the latter) and I don't agree with either of the policies brought in.

Had Labour kept the manifesto promise to abolish SATS from 2019 in this year's, I'd have vehemently got behind that one. Shame they didn't.

That maybe but my point stands most people are smart enough to know this isn’t going to solve all the problems in state education and the only people who attempt to suggest it will are those fighting against it… and I don’t ever remember seeing a Labour politician claiming it would solve everything.

The government isn’t choosing to fight this in the courts they will have no choice because of small minority of people who many see as already having lots of privileges getting upset. It’s not a good look even if they win.

No it doesn’t stand. No-one has suggested it will solve all the problems on either side. The people claiming it will be of some help are the ones supporting it.

Yes it does 😂

Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make you right

@TizerorFizz I am stunned that someone still believes that private school pupils succeed because they are genetically superior. It is absolutely not true. They succeed because of the environment ( smaller class sizes, work tailored to their needs and honestly, what would be considered cheating in the state sector ). I have taught in both private and state and it is the different environment that makes the difference. I also noticed that if there were problems in the classroom, the degree of support from senior management varied. Good schools of both types will get on top of this quickly and support inexperienced teachers - weak leadership fails equally in both types of schools.

There is also the pressure on some pupils from home because their parents are paying - that does have some effect.

On balance, I would say that the percentage of pupils displaying intelligence was higher in the state sector whilst the private sector had more outliers that they could accommodate ( very talented in one particular area and supported to keep up in other areas). The pupils in the private sector displayed their knowledge more ( a valuable skill that creates confidence) whereas the state school pupils were more discreet. Real intelligence, the kind that gets you to very good universities in hard subjects is often more prevalent in working class communities where the pupils make a calculated decision to maximise their options outside of academia ( starting their own business, etc) as the objective for them is to bring in money and buy housing as money may be tight at home.

Lovely to know you find my kids' welfare laughable. Thanks for that.

And you don't know my kids or what they need or what the details of my exact situation are. I'm not martyring myself, I'm explaining what is needed for my kids to access an education. Martyring myself would be to stop teaching after thirty years, abandon my pension completely and live on benefits while home educating my kids. . I've chosen a different path and struggling to see why so many people are pleased it's going to be more difficult.

The government isn’t choosing to fight this in the courts they will have no choice because of small minority of people who many see as already having lots of privileges getting upset.

The legislation will be a bugger to draft and if Labour mess it up there will be years of legal challenges.

Rewriting VAT law to tax private education when the rest of U.K. education is exempt will be difficult as VAT is on the basis of the service provided not the individual. To charge 2 children differently at the same school for the same service on the basis that one has SEN will be tricky to word in a way that avoids discrimination challenges. The same applies to VAT on factors such as food and boarding within private schools but not state boarding, uni halls or residential adult training colleges.

It’s not that I don’t agree, but that there is no evidence to support your assertion.

That maybe but my point stands most people are smart enough to know this isn’t going to solve all the problems in state education and the only people who attempt to suggest it will are those fighting against it… and I don’t ever remember seeing a Labour politician claiming it would solve everything.

This is rather disingenuous. No opponent has claimed that the purpose of the policy is to 'solve everything'. What has been said that it's very unlikely to solve anything which is a different argument.

The Times' article states:

'She also told the Sunday Times that she had received abuse over the policy, but would wear it as a "badge of honour" if it meant driving up the standards of state schools.

She added that the policy was 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".

Emphasising the importance of investment into state schools in her Telegraph piece, Phillipson said raising the standards of such establishments was the "route to better life chances… and a stronger society and economy".'

Phillipson is clearly saying that the policy will lead to improved state schools (and even suggesting that the policy can lead to 'brilliant' state schools when referring to the middle class parents who support the policy).

However, there is no substantive evidence to back up her assertion that the policy will lead to improvement in state schools. That's what opponents are saying.

This is rather disingenuous. No opponent has claimed that the purpose of the policy is to 'solve everything'. What has been said that it's very unlikely to solve anything which is a different argument.

Quite.

Why, what difference would that make? 6 months is plenty of notice. Why drag it out?
So the private parents can get away with tax breaks a little longer? So the extremely expensive KC the IS has hired can have more time to try to find loop holes?
There are private parents whining that they have to pay next terms fees even though they are leaving and how j fair is that etc etc - that’s between them and the school!
They’re the ones signing contracts with these businesses saying they have to give a terms notice - most to do with anyone else.

Yup. And those people saying on, it’s IDEOLOGY - of course it’s! Politics IS ideological - that’s the whole point! You choose a party who represents your morals,
views and values for the most part.

Don’t make me laugh.

If the legislation hasn’t been written yet, how is it possible that they will be collecting the VAT this month?

That maybe the case, until there is evidence to say otherwise it doesn’t prove I’m wrong either. I wait to see otherwise, admittedly it’s a sense I get from dealing with many people in education. I may be wrong let’s wait and see what happens

Does anyone actually believe that money will appear and serious social and economic issues will disappear in struggling State schools just because MC parents suddenly ask for it?
The State school I am involved with has many smart and motivated kids there but they are being prevented from learning by disruptive (and quite frankly dangerous in some cases) children who are from horrendous home situations. The teachers have to deal with difficult situations on a daily basis which takes them away from teaching. The Deputy Head who is on the gate each morning to keep an eye on things says he fears that one day he or a colleague may be seriously hurt or worse and he is pretty sure he knows which children will be responsible.
How will more MC kids being at the school affect that?
I would Home School my son before sending him there but fortunately we can absorb the increase in fees anyway. Oh, and that school is full so there would be no place for him anyway or in any other State Secondary in the vicinity.
I don't expect sympathy, I know we are very lucky to be able to have choices others don't but what pisses me off is the glee from bitter unpleasant people who think that all Private schools are Eton and populated by snobs who hate poor people.

I do bot find the campaign laughable, but I do find it difficult to get behind. Campaigning to make all private education VAT-free on the back of the (minority) of children with SEN (at a level that would be recognised across all sectors) who currently attend mainstream private schools is quite difficult.

I completely agree that provision - both in schools and in terms of the diagnosis, mental and physical healthcare and expert support provided within and outwith schools by specialist services - needs to be dramatically improved for all children with SEN. I would be completely in support of small struggling private schools with a special expertise in SEN - those described by parents of SEN pupils in the course of these threads - converting to special schools, accessible to all pupils on the basis of assessed need.

I just find it difficult when parents of non-SEN private schools pupils campaign on the basis that a privilege for their own children should reman as some private schools help some specific SEN children (but a lower than ‘fair’ proportion than their prevalence in the population as a whole), while underfunded state schools disproportionately bear the burden of most SEN, including the most difficult to manage.

Still on with the “tax breaks” stuff even though everyone has pointed out that it factually isn’t a tax break? Goady as well as spiteful? So let me ask you again: if the policy raises no money or even costs the taxpayer more, will you still support it?

Abosolute nonsense. It’s not the private schools implementing the VAT policy and therefore the increase in fees. It’s the Government.

Implementing it mid year and at short notice has caused all sorts of issues for schools. For a start, most are still not VAT registered because HMRC have a huge backlog. That means that they have to issue the invoices inclusive of VAT but not showing the VAT separately and then will have to re-issue them again once they have a VAT number. Many parents also pay by direct debit like myself - usually over nine or ten months. My November and December payments are a credit towards the Spring terms fees but I haven’t paid VAT on these payments as the VAT rules were not in force. So now, they have to amend the direct debit to reflect not only the VAT on the payments from January onwards but the VAT for the November and December payments. It would have been much more straight forward for the schools if they could start afresh with a new school year and equal direct debit payments for each month as usual.

Then there’s confusion as to which items are VATable and which are not. Different schools have been doing different things. There’s no clear guidance from HMRC as it’s all so new and has been put in place too quickly.

Most private schools have a tiny accounts team. They are not set up for all this additional work. As the new tax on vapes has an implementation period of almost two years, why do private schools only get three months?

@Hoppinggreen - actually I don't think that most private schools are like Eaton. I think too many are quite poor.

It's interesting how, despite me mentioning it three times (I think) on this thread, none of the supporters of this policy have acknowledged that it's only possible due to Brexit.

If this policy harms closer ties / a better trade deal with the EU, would you be happy to scrap it to allow a better trade deal?