If labour win the election can they introduce VAT immediately?

[londonparent321]

(For school fees) Or do they need to go through the courts which could take years /never happen?

No it isn't. It gives your children are advantage over other children. If your children then act in a way that continues to advantage other privately educated children then that reduces social mobility and decreases advantages.

It will only benefit society if all children can access it. Your talking about making all education paid for which is the opposite of accessible.

No, it is not a net positive to society that some people get the leg up that private education provides, simply because their parents (or grandparents) have money.

Society needs bright, talented people to do jobs that require degrees, and since degree apprenticeships are not available to all at the moment, for people who want graduate jobs there is no choice other than paying for university. If free university was available, great, add VAT on those that charge. (Obvs not great.)

Of course some can't afford it, or are not successful enough at school, or don't fancy it, so not everyone goes, and many try to minimise costs. But it's really not the same as choosing to pay for private education when state education is available. There is nowhere else for many aspiring professionals to train / qualify.

Paying for school when there free education is available is a choice.

Choosing a higher performing comprehensive or grammar school when there are closer state schools is also a choice. Perhaps we should tax everyone who chooses to use any school other than the one closest to their home.

Choosing a higher performing comprehensive or grammar school when there are closer state schools is also a choice. Perhaps we should tax everyone who chooses to use any school other than the one closest to their home.

Not a fan of grammar schools personally but having a choice of schools and being able to pick the one that suits your child best is fine. The problem is that 3/4 of the brightest, highest achieving schoolchildren are in state education and this isn't reflected in top jobs and positions of power. People with money are buying access to a whole load of opportunities ahead of brighter DC. Not only is that inequality, it's detrimental to society not to have the brightest and best in charge.

being able to pick the one that suits your child best is fine.

In many areas of the country, the one that best suits your child is often fee paying. Lots of the population don’t have the luxury of living near a selection of good state schools.

Not a fan of grammar schools personally but having a choice of schools and being able to pick the one that suits your child best is fine.

In case it's not clear, this was in the context of a PP suggesting that choosing your preferred state school out of the ones in your area is comparable to choosing private education.

There will always be some state schools better than others and that shifts from year to year. There will always be state schools that suit a particular child better. But having a preferred state school is not the same as choosing private education.

There will always be state schools that suit a particular child better. But having a preferred state school is not the same as choosing private education

why is it different? I ask in genuine bafflement. Why is it okay to spend extra on a home in a good catchment or pay for tutoring to get into grammars - both examples of using money to buy access to better educational provision- but not acceptable to pay fees?

It’s no different. If people really wanted equality, they’d agree with sending their children to the nearest state school regardless of how good that school was. After all, it’s apparently unfair that some children are able to access better schools.

@Gruhgahkle your argument treats education like some finite resource, where if mine get more others are left with less. Your reasoning also treats ‘opportunity’ as finite, like there will only ever be a set number of ‘successful’ people. What a ridiculous (and utterly depressing) world view!

as a country we have a real productivity problem - one way to look at that is not enough people reaching their economic potential. We need to be creating new opportunities not squabbling over how many lawyers/bankers come from private vs state school.

education should seek to help each child realise their own individual potential- unfortunately many state schools are utterly failing in this. Private schools frequently are able to offer a more individualised approach and therefore more likely to help individuals be their best version of themselves. My two SEN children are not jockeying for ‘master of the universe’ positions, but I do believe their private education is increasing the odds that they will find a productive path in life. Not at the expense of anyone else - just two children who might not have made it through if we left them in state. Net positive for society.

why is it different? I ask in genuine bafflement. Why is it okay to spend extra on a home in a good catchment or pay for tutoring to get into grammars - both examples of using money to buy access to better educational provision- but not acceptable to pay fees?

I agree. I suppose people who do this but criticise private education don’t want to face up to their hypocrisy.

5% of state schools are Grammars and you can run the system via a lottery for fairness, this is what happens where I live, my DC's secondary comprehensive places were decided by the lottery system. The only other choice that a parent can influence without paying fees is by being religious, both Christian denominations are available. Highly unlikely to get in to the Catholic school unless you are Catholic.

It’s so obvious what will happen if they push for VAT on private education.
The very wealthy will pay it
it will push a large portion of the MC kids out into outstanding state schools which will in turn put house prices up in the catchment and force the LMC and WC into the less desirable schools and cheaper houses.
The smaller private schools will close as student numbers will go down.

As long as everyone is okay with that then it’s a great plan 👌

There is however the choice not to do it - preschool/nurseries and universities do not cover the CSA years

The current “no taxation on education” applies to all those, all across the EU. Once UK cedes the principle that education can be taxed, then there is no reason not to see expansion idc

Labour we’re the administration that brought in university tuition fees. I really don’t think they’d have a problem with taxing them

None of the schools near where I live use a lottery system. That’s the problem with the state system - it really is a postcode lottery. There is deep inequality within the state system.

Re religious schools - is it “fair” that some children can access high performing religious schools only because they were born to parents who go to church?

Of course state education is a lottery. I live in a grammar county so it’s a brains and tutoring lottery. Great if you get into one. Below that - all schools are equal? No they are not. The religious schools choose by religious affiliation and one has a tiny catchment. So the sharper elbowed CofE types with some money go and live there. Then there’s the others which are sought after for good reason but then there’s a tiny minority that have had difficulties for years. Mostly serving the poorer areas but not exclusively. By and large money will buy you the better school catchment if you cannot get into a grammar.

Then there is the multi million £ business of tutoring. Who can afford that? Not the poor. Education is definitely a question of money and size of wallet. The bigger the wallet, the more you pay for education services. Plus better genes and parents doing a well paid job that required HE does help improve future outcomes. Who doesn’t think the dc of doctors won’t do well?

Im concerned about quality of teaching in some schools and advice to young people can be poor. It is definitely a choice to go to uni and initially the state pays the fees for most. Not paying it back is common so using state money doesn’t put anyone off going to uni. They are then presumably taking advantage of state money when others don’t get the loan for their future study or careers.

As for productivity: private firms have just about got back to pre COVID. Unlike the state sector which is woeful at times.

Part of the funding for religious schools comes from the church.
The church tends to own the grounds and buildings.
The tax payer would have to buy out the church and pay the full costs in order for the school to drop its entry requirement.
That is up to the church to decide.

So as it stands it is fair that those who pay into their church benefit from that.

@Hercisback in our area there are kids sitting at home waiting for a school place already, so it doesn't look like any school can be forced to oversubscribe.

Most faith schools are 100% funded by the state. Some provide 10% of capital costs.

We were in a black hole for primary where our 4 closest primaries were faith schools that selected based on church attendance and baptism - and could fill their places and then some without having to admit non-faith children. DD qualified for none of them. We lived 100 metres from one - but no chance of a place.

I was pretty resentful of funding schools that actively discriminated against my child whose parents happened to belong to a different religious minority. Imagine if we allowed government funded schools to select based on race or skin colour or political belief.

The vast majority of funding of faith schools comes from the state, not the church. I have no idea why so many people are vehemently against parents choosing to pay for private education, and yet are happy that some schools, funded by the taxpayer, are allowed to discriminate based on religion.

So as it stands it is fair that those who pay into their church benefit from that.

There are plenty of parents who go to church just to get the school application form signed by the church. They don’t “pay in” to the church.

just been googling more on this, came across this article https://mathsconcierge.co.uk/blogs/

It's interesting how it will be applied so i also googled more on the labour policy it mentions and looks like labour have given no information about how theyd actually do it or what would happen, seems like the VAT is the magic cure to everything. I agree with the idea but i doubt it will be implemented straight away as they've not got anything concrete...

The 'lottery' system is a policy it is not a turn of phrase, you submit your application and offered a place at a school regardless of postcode!

@Goldenbear Im aware of that. A “lottery” has a number of meanings in life! I was using it to describe how a good state education isn’t down to certainties.

Maybe it’s just Catholic schools then. All of them are part funded by the RC church.
I know orthodox Jewish schools are also not fully funded, some non orthodox are.

Is that true?

This website says:

The day to day running costs of Catholic schools are funded by the state in the same way that all schools are funded (either through local authority or DfE funding agreements). The Church covers 10% of the capital costs for the maintenance of the premises in all voluntary aided schools.

https://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/about-us/faqs#:~:text=The%20day%20to%20day%20running,in%20all%20voluntary%20aided%20schools.

Yes. RC schools are part funded by the church and the church owns the land and buildings.