To skint us all by sending DC to private school?

[Stilish]

One DC is at private school. This is because they have SEN and was really struggling at local comp. This was before the VAT issue. That DC is absolutely flourishing.

Next DC has no SEN and started at the local comp last year. Is not having a great time at all, it’s a really poor school in many ways and this DC has gone from happy and high achieving, to unhappy and failing academically in 12 months.

I want to send this DC to the private school too, where I know they will thrive like their sibling. But with the VAT it will be an incredible stretch for our family and I don’t know what to do. I have one happy child in a good school doing well, and one unhappy child in a crap school not doing well.

I hate Kier Starmer and I hate Rachel Reeves. Their spiteful tax hasn’t punished any of the rich families. But I’ve been homeless and my husband and I have grafted since our teenage years, and it’s bloody punishing us.

What on earth do I do?

YANBU - find a way and send them
YABU - keep one child in the local comp and let them keep failing

The now abolished tax relief originated from private schools’ charitable status. That’s my point.

This!

I think you have the wrong poster. I never claimed that.
Cool your engines.

God almighty. Some very poor comprehension on this thread!

Yes they did. For the last few years, it was private, and they paid.

No it didn't. Full time education was exempt.

Is there an alternative state seconsary that has now got a space for year 8 local to you. Might be worth a ring around local ones before putting everything in to two private school fees. I know a few very popular secondaries local to us had a few surprising spaces pop up once everyone started in each of the subsequent years throughout. People sometimes have to leave for work, house moves etc. worth a few calls so you can be armed with all the info.

But do you want to pay 20% extra because you don't use it?

This isn't affordable for your family. It's not affordable for the majority. That's life and not the fault of politicians. Private education was never meant to be affordable for the majority.

Yup. As a single parent I never earned 50k and had a mortgage. Their left over after putting two into private ed is more and they have no housing costs.

You misunderstood. The tax rebate that some countries give is to parents who pay. The VAT is not to do with charitable status. About 50% of private schools don't have charitable status. The ones that do no longer get business rate relief.

The issue is not that private fees have gone up. The issue that your younger DC is unhappy at school, and you need to look for an alternative.

You want the private, but like many of us can’t afford, so you need to look at state alternatives. They may be a better fit?

Yes, children are different and may well need different provision. But part of the issue you have here could be that you have a bit of resentment about the fact that Dc2 is not at private - meaning the state school will always need to do more to keep you happy, because in your mind it’s not the first choice solution.

Also, it will no doubt compare unfavourably with the private school to your child too, because when all’s said and done - 1) private will likely have better facilities and 2) your funding it subconsciously gives a message that it’s worth more to you. So you might be mutually reinforcing a narrative here in each other, without realising.

adults would see the situation in a more nuanced way but your teen might not.

Why do you think your choice of luxury education should be subsidised?

There is no right answer here - you could send the one who has the most potential. I went to private school my siblings didn’t because academically I excelled compared to my siblings. Hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on their education wasn’t going to change the outcome.

conversely you could say however that whoever is the most academically gifted DONT send them since they should be able to achieve excellent results anywhere and invest in the education of the one who is struggling to give them more opportunities to excel

there is no right answer and you are damned if you do damned if you don’t

She's not asking for it to be subsidised. She's already paying for the education. She's asking why she has to pay extra to subsidise the system she doesn't use, even though she already pays the same rate towards public services as everyone else.

If all MPs and Peers had to send their children to state schools

@LeedsLoiner most MPs do send/sent their dc to state schools. What changes do you think they can bring about?

I do object to this ‘ we don’t use the state system’ myth I often see on here. We ALL use the state system. People who have no children still benefit from decent education for our children. So you’re not subsidising anything. You are benefiting from our education system every time you go to work, need healthcare, need repairs doing, take financial advice…I could go on but am sure you get the picture.

I see the point you are driving at on other VAT exemptions but a healthier nation is good for the populace as a whole. Having thriving universities and a large percentage of the workforce educated to a degree level is good for the nation as a whole. I don’t think you can reasonably make the case that having 6% of the population educated in private schools is good for the nation as a whole. Of your examples, to my mind, private schools are most on a par with private gyms - which are not VAT exempt. If people can afford to use them, great - but if they can’t, then sadly they can’t. On a human level, I feel sorry for the tiny portion of people who used to be able to afford them before VAT but now can’t - but I just genuinely can’t see any justification for the VAT exemption.

I didn't say that they don't benefit from the state system. I said the state system benefits from not having them in it.

It's not the same as someone not having children, because someone who doesn't have kids still relies on the next generation of tax payers, but doesn't actually put anything into raising them.. However, we don't charge them extra- they pay the same tax as everyone else.

Someone who has kids but chooses not to take up a state school place is still creating a future tax payer at a considerably lower cost to the state. But now they are paying extra for the "privilege" of not using the place.

That's one solution.

The other solution is could you afford extra tutoring for your DS at the state school? You say he did well at primary...maybe he's trying to settle in. If you can keep him in the higher sets, he will get a better education. Where does he need help? Maths? English... Can he go to a sixth form college after GCSE? if you sent him to a private school>?
Also.. if he's interested in sport or drama or music or whatever, and its not happening at school, taking him to clubs, like a weekend football team or afterschool sports etc means he will get a lot more opportunities to actually perform and will meet more people outside his school, which can help if he's lacking in confidence. I wish you well with your decision. its not easy.

I can’t afford to send my children to private school, either. Shit, isn’t it?

Having children who can't cope in mainstream and yet are not severe enough to take up a state funded special school place somewhere they can thrive is a net positive.

Having kids who have a high potential to achieve highly academically somewhere where they can do that is a net positive.

Having fewer children in state schools is a net positive.

I don’t deny there are some individual cases where those things may be true - but unfortunately, I just do not believe those individual cases justify private businesses (which private schools are) being given a tax break.

I think I also just fundamentally disagree that having those children out of the state system is a net positive. Firstly, falling birth rates mean that plenty of schools do have capacity to take on more kids.

Secondly, the business model of private schools relies on creating elite networks and unhelpful prejudices against state education: their whole pitch is that your kid will do better in life if they go to private school. That inevitably disadvantages a large percentage of the population. Fine, those advantages are what private school customers are paying for but let’s not pretend it’s to the advantage of most of the population.

Has anyone suggested taking in ironing? That normally crops up for poor folk trying to make ends meet.

But surely both can co-exist.

We can demand better state schools whilst taxing private schools.

You shouldn’t compare schooling across countries as our systems are different. It’s not a fair comparison to say “they use more private schooling than us!”. It could be for many structural reasons that exist differently in the UK.