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.

not in a grammar school area.

Seriously? Lordy, that’s real commitment to an ideal. I salute you.

The adjacent catchment area seems to be 20 miles from you. How can you not live rurally?

The catchment/MC wealth and sharp elbows problem isn’t a ‘gotcha’, it’s a social problem that creates inequality and that the middle class left refuses to acknowledge - because they take part in it and perpetuate it.

Quite a few universities make offers based on the school attended, so I don’t know what you’re getting at?

If a pupil achieves AAA at a state school that is seen as underperforming with limited resources, then that pupil deserves as much recognition as the A star A star A pupil at a selective school with much more resources. That’s the whole point of contextual offers.

If you’re trying to argue that the same student would achieve the A star A star A at a private school then that’s possible - but that’s why contextual offers are designed to level the playing field. That state school pupil is still high achieving, probably more so than the probate school pupils that have enjoyed huge educational privilege.

By 'anywhere' I mean an average state school with no extra help. Obviously all children need teachers and the basic facilities any school provides...

And what would you have done if one of your children was like me? Endlessly bullied for being top of the class, mental health destroyed with a resulting suicide attempt. I should have got all A’s but I mainly got B’s and C’s in my GCSEs due to the time I had off school. It is utter bollocks that bright children can always do well wherever they go to school.

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.

Yes, and if that’s the case, why is there such competition to get into the high achieving state schools?

Lordy no my love, I just didn’t want to live in an area with a two tier state system. Vast swathes of England (and all of Wales and Scotland) don’t have grammar schools, so they are quite easy to avoid.

Your maths is a bit off: I live quite close to the edge of the adjacent catchment - just a mile or two away - which also provides other equally good secondary options.

Ok. But why are you so sure that the low-income-background child who wants to aim for a profession (for example) won’t suffer in a crappy comp? Crappy is, let’s face it, the norm for comps, and always has been.

As a pp has said, contextual offers pre-suppose that academic achievement is less likely at a school where social challenges are greater. There must be something dragging down grades at those schools. And I’m damn sure it’s not the lack of sparkly new textbooks or a hockey pitch.

To be clear, I absolutely support the aim of education providing a leg up for the poor and disadvantaged. So why object to selection? I mentioned Hackney Downs Grammar upthread. You could not get a better example of social and professional levelling than that. Look it up, please.

Thread summary: people paying private school fees think they shouldn’t have to pay more. Everyone else thinks they can afford it and should stfu.

From the research I have observed, academic kids learn best in groups of 25-27 with a great teacher feeding off each other. Less academic kids and lowest sets benefit most in small groups with lots of attention from teacher’s explaining at their pace and in different innovative ways. And ideally some would get some 1 to 1 attention regularly were they experience real difficulty. But the state does not want to pay for this set up so we are constantly told the lie that somehow the academic kids moving around the same building in a comp send out wafts of academic prowess in the busy corridors which the lowest sets then somehow magically absorb. It is all lies.

Alrighty. The school your child/children go to is 20 miles from the next catchment. That is still very rural. Where I live the catchments are adjacent within the length of a football pitch.

And choosing not to be in a ‘two tier’ school area still strikes me as outstandingly principled (albeit I can’t agree). I wasn’t being snarky, just rather gobsmacked.

So, what about the better-off householders crowding around good comps issue?

Alrighty. The school your child/children go to is 20 miles from the next catchment. That is still very rural. Where I live the catchments are adjacent within the length of a football pitch.

D- for maths.

I live in a city.

That makes no sense. Your school either has a catchment area of 450 square miles or it doesn’t.

Catchments can overlap, sure. But that isn’t what you’ve said.

E for explanation and argument.

@Nellodee - that is not true, some of us are state school parents and morally object to other parents whose kids have SEN or just wouldn’t thrive optimally in even a good comp should have to pay 20 per cent extra when they are already having to help their kids because the state system has failed them. Like I don’t see why a severely dyslexic but eager and well behaved child should be expected to linger in a low set in huge classes and not be able to learn due to bad behaviour and disruption by other pupils. I think those parents are not just putting their own child first if they seek out a private school, they are benefitting the whole of society where the state has failed their child.

I just don’t believe that all private schools are turning out the next generation of greedy bankers, but maybe you do?

Private schools aren’t being scrapped.

It might be up to 20% on fees… Because the schools don’t have to pass it all on. (Eg they could lower their core fee and reduce their overheads to be more efficient so that when you apply VAT it’s not 20% higher).

We all pay taxes, not just income tax. All of us who buys anything. We all pay taxes for things that we do not use.

Private schooling is a privilege for those who can afford it. So, either cut your cloth or the school can cut theirs. That’s what we say to those who are at the bottom end and are expected to live on poor or ever squeezed wages. Including teachers working in private schools.

It is difficult to accept, but it is a privilege compared to the vast majority of people in the country, to be able to use private school.

If, for whatever reason, you lost your job or couldn’t afford private anymore, there would be a place for your child in state education. What a safety net to have.

People don’t like to imagine that they haven’t worked hard to earn enough. No one is saying that you have not.

But having a high salary doesn’t make you more of a hard worker than, say, a nurse. It just makes you someone with a high paid job.

If the government were braver, they would tackle the skewed tax system, target obscene corporate profits (energy, pharma and financial services) and pour money back into the state. But, sadly Labour are too cowardly so remove VAT on schools it is.

What a lot of people tent to forget is that many special schools are private. And parents who can are self funding (40%at my son’s school). If all if these kids are put in regular schools its the end of any education for not only these kids but for all kids in their class.
As a parent if I‘m forced to put him in a mainstream school, I will raise hell to make sure he gets an education- I don’t care about the other kids. I was prepared to pay for him, if that is taken away from us I will make sure that either he gets the attention he needs (about 30% of each teachers time), or that all other children get exactly the same support he gets - none. Its the only way to make the public aware of the needs of SENDs kids.

it is a privilege compared to the vast majority of people in the country, to be able to use private school.

Why? Apparently public school parents are wasting their money because if their child’s interested and motivated they’d get the same outcome anywhere.

This looks like just a pernicious attack on wealth.

It couldn’t be that state education, post-widespread grammar provision, has completely failed, could it? Despite the colossal sums poured in (and wasted) by Blair just so that he could make triumphalist conference speeches.

You need to read back through the quotes. I was responding to a post that said there is no reason to suggest pupils who get excellent results at one school wouldn’t have got excellent results at a different school.

I was similar - bullied for being top of the class in my very mediocre comprehensive. Many lessons the teacher struggled to teach anything due to the level of disruption.

Individual accounts are worthwhile but not solid evidence.

Even so, the general picture of state education in this country is bleak.

Not the case.

I’m a state educated parent with a child in a comprehensive.

I dislike badly thought out policies that are vindictive and based on envy and ‘let’s kick the better off’.

I also believe people should have choice in education.

94% of the UK isn’t urban, your experience of being in a densely populated urban area is very different to my experience of a much more mixed environment.

And yes, DC’s school has a catchment covering 450 sq miles.

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps I'm another who chose not to live in a two tier area. We moved out of Tiffinland (as I call the area of SW London where we previously lived). And it wasn't a matter of my children not cutting it academically either. I just didn't want to buy into it. They ended up having a similar comprehensive education as me and my (v high achieving) DH. Our children followed suit and inadvertently ended up helping up the results of their comp.
There are more families out there with similar principles than you might think!

This is my position too

80+% of the UK population is urban. See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1147617/1_-_Population_v2.pdf

What do you mean 94% of the UK isn’t urban? By land? What a pointless fact. We’re talking about children’s schools, not beach erosion or nitrogen fertiliser risks.