VAT on private school fees

[user1486984759]

So I’m going to get crucified for this, BUT, let me get this straight:

• We pay 45% tax, thereby funding state schools
• We do not get any benefits, and those that do get priority when it comes to state school admissions
• We scrimp and save from what’s left after paying 45% tax to pay for our kids’ education
• And now the state is going to add 20% to our school fees to fund state schools
• So we pay the most to fund state schools, but when it comes to state school admissions, we are last in line

How is this fair?

It seems that in this country, the best places to be are (1) a non-dom billionaire, or (2) someone who doesn’t pay taxes, gets all the benefits, and gets priority in state school admissions. The hard working PAYE earners are screwed by parties from left, right and center.

You missed the point that some of those kids with stellar GCSE grades will have achieved them at non selective schools - or “less academically inclined schools” if you prefer.

Unless you think that those schools are unable to teach A level material to the same standard as GCSE material, then yes those outstanding kids will do well at A level.

If those outstanding kids are continually skimmed off by selective hothouses then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Much better, in my opinion, to direct resources at retaining those kids and ensuring that they reach their potential.

Like, oh let’s say, cash injections for those schools with disadvantaged students.

Because I’m comparing the relative social justifications for different charitable purposes. A breeder of pedigree dogs is a straightforward business, not a charity. Just like a garden centre, builder or soft play franchise.

Schooling is the provision of a good, worthwhile social benefit. I assume you’d agree that for state provision. So you put up a new sign outside that says “independent” and suddenly it’s no longer a socially beneficial activity. Is that right?

Because they’ve achieved those grades whilst overcoming significant barriers, whether that’s through poverty, being young carers, being refugees or whatever factors the contextual offer takes into consideration.

When it becomes a blunt instrument is when it relies on factors like SIMD or POLAR4, which is (in my opinion) too much of a blunt tool if used on its own.

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps

Bingo!

Private schools are a straight forward businesses which do not provide any benefits for society. Just like soft plays, garden centres etc.

They are not true, charities.

There are a few special schools that I would exempt from this, but the majority are businesses serving a small, privileged section of society to the detriment of the rest of us.

Either education benefits society as a whole - in which case private schools provide a benefit to wider society - or it doesn't... in which case why should those with no children contribute through taxation?

How about children on full bursaries? Are they suddenly a benefit?

Oh right, cash injections. That’ll sort it. The kids who don’t want to learn will turn things around when they have a new art block or textbooks without moustaches drawn on the pictures of people.

Rather than us going round the houses, as it were, could you tell me whether you approve of people using their wealth to buy into catchment for good comprehensives, to better ensure that their children go to school with the offspring of similar-minded parents?

If you don’t approve of that, how would you stop this ‘shadow’ selective schooling?

So why is any schooling of social benefit then?

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps the old shibboleth about people buying into catchment is very tiresome as well as irrelevant for most of the country. Most people have to stay where they are for work or other reasons. If you knew where I lived (with its gorgeous countryside and coast but rural deprivation) I would challenge you to show me a single person who has moved here for schooling. It's as average as it gets (or worse) and with no choice. One comp for a large rural/market town area which borders on another such area with an equally uninspiring school. We get what we get.

Countries like Australia think private schools are a benefit to society to the extent that they receive government funding.

In 2021, Aus Independent schools received an average of $11,830 per student.

This was interesting on the government website:

Independent schools not only get less government money than government schools, they make a major contribution to the Australian economy

• 115,090 people are employed in Independent schools, earning $9.5 billion in salaries and wages, and contributing an estimated PAYG tax of $2.0 billion and a further $965 million in superannuation.
• Parents whose children attend Independent schools contribute $8.1 billion annually through school fees.
• Over 86 per cent of all capital development in Independent schools is funded by parents.

The UK will become a massive outlier in the world if it starts taxing education.

We do the same - through tax breaks and charitable status.

If you lived where I live it’s a fact of life. some years ago I even had a colleague who lived in the area but out of catchment who asked if I’d lie to say I’d known the parents to have lived in the area for two years. I didn’t agree to this.

It’s a fact of life in many, many places. Probably urban more than rural, but most of the population is urban or semi-urban.

It’s not a ‘shibboleth’ (is that the right term anyway?) it’s a widespread reality.

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps

Education makes individuals fit for society.

Segregation by wealth is not helping this.

Cholera was a widespread reality for quite some time.

So governmentally-provided education good and socially worthwhile, private education bad? Right?

That seems like a wholly - and unpleasantly - politically motivated view. Nothing to do with logic or reason.

I can see that certain core social provision should be more highly restricted and regulated. But I’d start with the housing sector. Which includes people elbowing their way into good state schools by property purchase, including second properties. Private schooling would be a long way down the list.

But I accept it’s a totem to the middle class left.

to the detriment of the rest of us ?
Why tax then? Should not they be abolished? Nationalised? Destroyed?

The suggested VAT would add about 3% of the education budget to the Treasury. Not enough to catch up with inflation.
But look how much noise and hot tempers it generates! That is the real reason for the suggestion.

My youngest DC’s state school has a catchment area of approx 450 square miles, which encompasses a wide ranging population demographic, although on the whole house prices tend to be high and wages low.

Still, it’s a high rated school with a mix of kids, ranging from the Oxbridge and medicine candidates down to the disruptive ones that can’t wait to leave at 16.

You’re welcome to buy a property within that 450 square miles - Rightmove suggests that there are well over 2000 currently on the market to suit all budgets.

@SabrinaThwaite sounds like our catchment as was (my children are now in their twenties). Very much a pyramid structure though - with a tiny number of oxbridge/medical candidates (fortunately my DC were among them) and then cascading layers of disengagement or simply low aspiration. But here's the thing for all the parents scared of such a dynamic - vast majority of those kids have ended up gainfully employed and contributing to society. My children went to school with future hairdressers and tractor drivers and mechanics and builders and chefs and small business owners as well as (in a notable case) an Ivy League academic and a couple of lawyers and doctors.
Whilst it would feel scary to many, it was really good knowing that the school reflected the community. My one niggle is that levels of aspiration were low and little was done to address that. Not a problem if you come from a solidly MC family but definitely a problem for many. And after my children left the school was put into special measures 😟. But that's another story.

450 square miles? So 21 miles x 21 miles? You must live rurally. I’ve commented on the rural v urban schooling position above. Your situation is statistically unrepresentative of parents and children.

And you you’re just dodging the question. If you’re willing to admit that school decisions feature large in where many, many people look to to buy (just read the innumerable threads on here about it if in doubt), what’s your solution? If you don’t believe this happens widely, we can agree to differ.

Education is clearly set out as a charitable purpose. Charitable purposes are as follows (you will note, they are not restricted just to dogs and poor people):
(a)the prevention or relief of poverty;
(b)the advancement of education;
(c)the advancement of religion;
(d)the advancement of health or the saving of lives;
(e)the advancement of citizenship or community development;
(f)the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
(g)the advancement of amateur sport;
(h)the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;
(i)the advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
(j)the relief of those in need because of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage;
(k)the advancement of animal welfare;
(l)the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services;
(m)any other purposes—
(i)that are not within paragraphs (a) to (l) but are recognised as charitable purposes by virtue of section 5 (recreational and similar trusts, etc.) or under the old law,
(ii)that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any purposes falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (l) or sub-paragraph (i), or
(iii)that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any purposes which have been recognised, under the law relating to charities in England and Wales, as falling within sub-paragraph (ii) or this sub-paragraph.

But those criteria are not synonymous with attending a specific school. My question was about access criteria targeting specific low achieving schools - something you suggest has no impact on high achieving pupils.

@explainthistomeplease - where your DC really happy and inspired at this school? Did they have happy teenage years? Were they and are they still proper friends with some of the other kids who were far less academic?

We always expect kids to mingle amongst social classes but I barely know any hairdressers who are best friends and hang out on the weekend with doctors/lawyer type families. And the bias goes both ways. Is this because of schooling or something else?

A mix @Araminta1003
I confess they largely stuck to their own - they had no time for anyone who mucked about in class. That said DS had a best friend who is now a chef.

Children who are exceptionally able and well motivated can do well anywhere. Even at a 'bog standard comp' with classes of 30+ there will be the occasional child that gets ten GCSE Grade 9s. However, there will be many other children who are able and well motivated, but less exceptionally so. These children might get GCSE Grade 7s and 8s at the comp with no extra help, but mostly 9s if they are sent to a high performing private school and have extra tutoring. The purpose of contextual offers is to distinguish the students with exceptional potential (whether educated in private or state sector) from students who are very good, but not exceptional.

I’m not dodging any issues but the whole “we’ll just price everyone else out of schools in good catchments” isn’t the gotcha you think it is.

And no, I don’t live rurally. You can easily do a daily commute to several large cities from where I am. The adjacent catchment area has several secondaries with excellent ratings too.

My only particular requirements when we moved to England was good transport connections and not in a grammar school area.

Children who are exceptionally able and well motivated can do well anywhere.

This is just not true. If it were, the able child (“exceptionally able” or just able) wouldn’t need school at all. In which case why bother shoehorning them in to low achieving schools?