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?

Most middle class parents can't afford school fees. We certainly couldn't despite earning in the top 10% of salaries

Sounds like the politics of envy to me @Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g 😆😆

Well Phillipson would say that, wouldn't she.

That is a totally fair point and comment and you are absolutely right as it doesn’t affect us.

I would rather (if I was in that situation) move house to a better schooling area. We purposely moved to our house (a hour from where we were previously living) knowing our state schools were ‘outstanding’. I would absolutely send my kid to a ‘good’ school too.

What we find around us (and there are three private schools in our town) is that they are full of kids with SEN needs or waiting for diagnosis so they aren’t better academically which I believe is only reserved for the very top private schools or those who toss kids when they don’t perform (exclusion numbers for some private schools can be a lot higher than state schools because of this - I have done the research).

Putting all that money into private education (for kids who don’t necessarily need it) who then don’t always go on to do loads with it isn’t our preference. We would rather put it into the house, potentially having an asset for the kids, help for uni,
going on nice holidays and enjoying life rather than sacrificing for what is in my eyes (in our situation - again agree with you here) no better education or experience.

If you can afford private education you aren't 'the middle'.

I'm all right, Jack. Great attitude. Reminds me that years ago there was a documentary on TV about an extremely rich family who had discovered to their amazement that their local state secondary school was really good so they decided to send their kids there (after private prep schools). They waxed lyrical about how much money they would save, how it would enable them to pay for all sorts of extracurricular activities and a second home in France and take lots of skiing trips.

She’s not exaggerating. The only MC people I know who care about private school
parents getting tax breaks over improving state schools are the people using private schools.

I don't think people understand how extremely fucked the state school system is now, specifically the send system. And it's only going to get worse.

It's not going to be enough, no, and it's going to take a long time to have any impact, but quite frankly they need to scrape any barrel they can.

We could, but don’t believe in it HOWEVER despite having a house gold income of £250k + it STILL would have been a stretch. How fucking ridiculous is that???
waste of money.

You have to be earning around double the average salary to put you in the top 10% of earners. Many families could (and do) manage on the equivalent of an average salary and spend the difference on a private education.

I thought private schools were notoriously bad at providing for SEN students ?

This is not my experience. Most middle class families and individuals I know agree with the policy.

Those upset with unaffordability need look no further than the doorsteps of the schools who have raised their fees, on average, by 300% over the last nine years.

I couldn’t afford it now. It would’ve meant having at least one maybe two less children and there’s no way that sacrifice would’ve been worth it.
My one child that is actually talking about having kids is keen to send hers for primary school. We are as a family saving already and this future child is a good 10 years off being conceived.

For a single child perhaps. At a stretch.

More the politics of 'Let's be consistent, logical and not hypocrites'. Possibly explains why I've never found a political party I positively want to vote for!

The schools around here haven’t increased their fees by anywhere near that level. In fact, they have been broadly in line with inflation (we’ve been in the system well over a decade).

There is so much discussion around the ethics relating to this policy ( as evidenced by this and many similar threads) and so little around the practicalities, the actual figures of increased funding per state school child, how it be distributed and when, the specific improvements labour expects to see as a direct result, over what time frame, how will it be measured, what is their back up plan if it does not improve standards,

It's a very clever policy politically - promises nothing measurable so cannot be called a failure, it pits 'rich against poor' for great headlines, and people get so caught up in the ideology that they somehow forget to realise that schools are now worse off than ever. Genius!

Probably under half of 'middle class parents' could even have considered private schooling (children now either left school or in their final years, to give examples). I'd guess only about a third either vote Tory or Reform.

So I guess many will be supportive or neutral.

I don't see how a policy that has at its heart the ambition to create a more equal society is the politics of envy. Surely it's the politics of aspiration?

I think the only people who really care about this are those who are personally affected, which is a tiny number of people, many of whom are now posting on Mumsnet.

Most people (including the vast majority of middle class people if we take 'middle class' as being literally the middle swathe of the earnings range) don't send their chidren to private school. Most people don't even consider it, either because they can't afford it or because they don't see the value. Most people therefore don't have a strong view on VAT on fees and if, asked about it, probably think it's a good idea, not because they're envious but because taxing a luxury purchase seems fair.

More the politics of 'Let's be consistent, logical and not hypocrites'. Possibly explains why I've never found a political party I positively want to vote for!

If you say so!

You have to be earning around double the average salary to put you in the top 10% of earners. Many families could (and do) manage on the equivalent of an average salary and spend the difference on a private education.

With todays housing costs? The people I know who can afford it despite not earning a lot have significant family help

What is the “posh South East”?

What’s your point? I said ‘on average’ which is accurate.

Most families could easily mange to spend £40k for 2 children at private school on a salary of £250k. Gross £250k gives you net income of around £155k assuming it’s earned between 2 people equally. Most families could comfortably live on £115k net income after school fees.

Many families prioritise their children’s education.

I'm all right, Jack. Great attitude

But was that not the attitude pre this policy? People are upset because they are now excluded. Or maybe I missed the multiple MNs threads about how it was unfair that private education was exclusive?