Allow a play date where mum unapologetically supports children’s education tax

[GigglyOrange]

Just this really, our local independent prep school closed due to the education tax earlier this year and has caused absolute chaos for lots of families, including my own. My dd (6) has been invited for a play date with a girl she seems very friendly with and who seems very sweet, but I’ve since found out from another parent that the mum is an ‘unapologetic education taxer’. My instinct is to cancel the play date, AIBU?

I'm not sure when it started that it seemed reasonable to exclude someone from your life if they had a differing political opinion.

But it's not healthy for individuals or society.

Sadly, I do.

Some of it was sarcasm as others have said. I’m guilty. But OP has called people “stupid idiots” and done a lot of character assassination.

Me saying she appears to be outraged is not a slur, she is very, very angry.

You could Google it

Predictably, there are significant concerns and documented reports that children uprooted from independent schools to the state system due to the UK's VAT on private education have suffered emotionally. The sudden transition has sparked debates about the impact on pupil wellbeing, though the broader reality of the policy's effects is complex: 1, 2, 3, 4]

Emotional and Social Strain: Many parents and advocates for independent schools argue that uprooting a child from their familiar environment—often leaving close friends and smaller support networks—can be highly distressing. Media reports and parental anecdotes highlight instances of children struggling to adapt to larger class sizes, facing anxieties about integration, and experiencing emotional distress. 1, 2, 3,

State School Capacity: Critics of the tax argue that this migration places immense pressure on an already strained state-funded system, potentially compromising the quality of education for both existing students and newcomers. 1,

Any students moving close to exam years may also have lost out on exam choices
Had my kids had to move one would have lost two A level choices that they got As in at GCSE
another One choice.

Sarcasm is a type of aggression. I'm not blaming you or anyone else, merely making observations.

Between her first post where she didn't call anyone idiots and her second one where she didn't call anyone idiots either there was already enough of "sarcasm" directed towards her and her child. That's why I said maybe she was right.

Oh, come on. Kids have to change schools all the time, state or private, and most take it in their stride.

I also went to a supposedly excellent state grammar school, and hated every minute of it. Schools can be good on paper, and terrible in practice.

Also, prices for luxuries (which is what private schools are) can fluctuate quite significantly. It's very easy to blame the government if you're bitter you can't afford it any more, but private education isn't a right.

🤣🤣👏

Hate towards whom?

Are you presuming that parents who don't make that choice don't want the best for their children?

No one’s fault but the parents for taking risks with their kids educations.

I love this thread.

op- aibu
everyone- yes you are
Op- no mean cruel spiteful

No but you know that already.

The OPs DC is 6 years old.

In any case, what you are saying here is that changing schools might not be great. But people change schools for all sorts of reasons. Including kids moving from state school to private.

So does your evidence work that way as well ? That it is harmful to move from state to private ?

The trouble with relying on Gemini or other generative AI to do your thinking for you is that it discourages you from looking critically at whether what you're cutting and pasting is based in evidence and whether the source is reliable.

So let's take the "State School Capacity" point in your post. As has already been done to death (mostly by me) on this thread, the "immense pressure on an already strained state-funded system" argument is a fallacy. Given what we already know about the existing impacts of birth rate decline on the school system, and the implications of the school population projections for the next 4-5 years, the private sector would have to decline by two thirds for the state system to even break even.

Worth also noting that the areas currently most hard hit by state school population decline tend to be those with the highest concentration of private schools. But regardless, very few areas will afford being hit by this by 2030.

She’s probably angry because she’s embarrassed and disappointed she can’t afford the fees anymore. I mean the kid is 6 - school fees climb significantly into the later years so tax or not this doesn’t sound like a financially viable option for the family. Sucks I bet but you can’t have everything.

Not elitism but making the choice that's best for their children?

It IS the definition of elitism that what the parents want is their children to have an advantage over other children, they want their children to be elite ong their peers. It is what elitism IS.

To be fair to OP I don't think the issue was that she couldn't afford the fees, it was that the school closed (presumably because it was operating on a knife edge already so questionable whether it would have survived population decline/CoL crisis) and there are no other suitable preps available/moving wasn't an option.

This. If the entire population attended fee-paying schools, there would be no ‘edge’ over others, so some parents would find some other way of buying an advantage for their offspring.

You asked for some proof
I don’t have the figures but as I said
i googled the question
As we see
there is discussion about evidence in favour of pps comment you highlighted

YABVU. But given the attitudes you have displayed on this thread, I am wondering why you didn’t just go and find another public school with like minded individuals, instead of going state? Even with a longer commute, your child would have the experience you want them to have.

I don’t follow your logic on it being a tax on children.

You stated yourself: ‘The 20% is paid by the children or fee payer on any educational or vocational training services provided. So yes the government put the cost to children/parents up by a fifth half way through the academic year.’

The key word there is ‘services’. The services are delivered by a service provider. That service provider is a business, on whom the VAT is being levied. Using that paid-for service is a choice.

So, it would be nice if you could stop calling it a tax on children and calling anyone who points out it is actually a tax on private school businesses ignorant?

No I didn't, but thanks for clarifying. I would feel I had failed mine if they couldn't cope in a normal school and weren't ND.

This is an absolutely unhinged take.

The playdate is for your daughter and her pal, not you and the mum.

You're talking like she's a neo-nazi or something...

I think it's abundantly clear from this post that the OP is just on the wind-up.

VAT (a tax) on school fees (education). Ergo, a tax on education. Pleased we agree.

A tax on luxury education that only affects 7% of school age parents and which they can choose not to pay.