Those worried about VAT on private schools: is this a deal you’d consider?

[user1477391263]

https://cps.org.uk/media/post/2023/fund-private-school-places-for-looked-after-children-urges-leading-tory/

A small-scale scheme has been going for a while in which (small numbers of) children in care are offered places at private boarding schools, at taxpayer expense. Yes, the person supporting the scheme and its expansion is a Tory MP - but the results are impressive and may be worth thinking about.

You might think that “that sounds financially unsustainable” - yet, shockingly, per-pupil it actually works out a lot cheaper than the alternatives. Keeping a child-in-care in a normal residential school place costs six times as much as sending them to Eton (!). There has recently been a lot of discussion about this in the media.

If private boarding schools were offered a deal whereby they could avoid VAT if they were prepared to take on a few kids in care (one per class, let’s say?), would parents support this?

I don’t use private British schools (although my eldest does go to a private secondary in another country) so have no strong ideological leanings either for or against private education and have no particular dog in this fight - I am just genuinely interested in how parents would feel about this. It would be easier to let private schools off from VAT if there was a stronger sense that they were fulfilling a social purpose that was hard for other institutions to deliver at the same level.

Eh?
Looked after children in a residential school I would imagine have complex needs that cannot be met in a mainstream school , otherwise they would be in one .

I think the kids are drawn from children’s homes, not residential schools for SEN.

I mean, I agree in that I think a high % of kids in care generally have complex needs, but presumably not all of them, and I would I assume that the scheme would select only those who are judged able to function OK in a regular mainstream school. The report found that over half of the kids who have been through this program were getting five or more good GCSE passes, which suggests to me that the kids being picked for the program are not those with a lot of complex issues.

If it is less expensive and benefits the child, then it makes sense in theory.

However it won't work on a larger scale because many looked after children have suffered trauma and that comes out as disruptive or violent behaviour.
Our school's boarding house is home to 17 overseas children, or with parents in the British military. They are cared for by a house team of 6 in a safe family style home. That team don't have time to track down a cared-for child who has decided to abscond. Nor is it fair to the existing boarders to have the boarding house calm disrupted by a child with trauma. This is their home 9 months of the year and they already have enough to cope with- parents in combat zones etc.

If the authorities could be trusted to only place dcs who are not a threat, it might work but they can't. And the house team is not trained to deal with those sorts of issues.

Sure

Some of the teens in my family go to a school with a very extensive scholarship programme, so the kids come from incredibly varied backgrounds.

For some kids I’d imagine it would work well.

Most boarding schools don't have year round care for boarders (some have limited short holiday care for overseas but not for the 3 months over summer). What happens to the children then? I can see it being much more disruptive than them being in a foster care family / permanent residence.

I'd have thought that a stable foster placement within a family who treat the child as their own would give better outcomes for the children.

There's sadly a chronic shortage of foster families.

The state does cover the costs for foster children, but I guess a lot of people worry that welcoming a possibly troubled foster child will impact their own children.

Perhaps a way to get over that barrier would be to suggest a new policy to introduce VAT on mortgage interest payments - but waive that VAT for families who foster children. Being loaned a large sum of money to buy a house is an enormous privilege, which is only open to 50% of the population, and the interest payments are effectively how you 'buy' that loan, so a sales tax seems appropriate. Stable home-ownership hugely privileges the family children, and will be great for the foster children too.

Last point is slightly facetious. But really, what you're proposing is exactly equivalent.

You are saying in this “idea” paying parents can avoid paying VAT by having a single token child from care (paid for by the tax payer) boarding with their children

and the question is, is it worth the 20% VAT reduction to parents for their children to have to live and be educated with this token care child?

😂😂😂😂😂

A child in care boarded at private school being financially/practically viable should be in no way related to other parents paying VAT

I'm not point-scoring with my first point about fostering, by the way. I've seriously considered fostering but we both work full-time, which disqualifies us (and tbf doesn't leave enough time and emotional energy for a struggling child) and I do also worry about the impact on DD. I think it should be an overall positive for her, but a very disruptive child might not be.

Maybe in 10 years when I've changed to part-time working - and DD will also have left home - although I'll be quite old by then! (so given age, maybe short term fostering at that point instead, which is still really important.)

But it's just as ridiculous to tax education but offer a tax rebate to private school parents who 'accept' a cared-for child at their school as it is to tax home-ownership but offer a tax rebate to parents who 'accept' a cared-for child in their home.

The tax is unfair and counter-productive in both cases.

And caring for a child should be based on much better reasons than tax exemption! Both in terms of what's best for the child and the impact on the carer.

Bribing people to care for a child by exempting them from a maliciously introduced tax is wrong on many levels.

Surely the question here is why can a private boarding school, provide lodging and an education cheaper than the state.
As a standalone I am all for this, ensuring mix of backgrounds is good for all the children. In my opinion. Hopefully would also result in upward social mobility for care kids who often don't have the best outcomes.
Also with the lack of Foster carers, surely it's easier to find Foster care for 3 months of the year?

To clarify this should be a stand alone issue from the 20% vat issue.

Agreed. If it works well for the child and the school and is cheaper than other options, then of course it should be an option. And should have nothing to do with VAT

I'm sure there would be a load of work (and hence up-front cost) in establishing it: how the whole process would work, overall responsibility for the child, safe-guarding, selecting which children and which schools it would work for, figuring out what to do when things don't work... But it could be a really positive initiative.

And a very good point from @MotorwayDiva that fostercare for holidays only would make fostering possible for a lot more families, since those with term-time-only jobs like teaching become eligible. If the new initiative was combined with a big awareness campaign to find part-time but long-term foster carers specifically for the program, it could make a huge difference.

This already happens. Our school already has children attending under this scheme, as do lots of others. It works incredibly well for the right kids. It's not offered to avoid VAT, it's offered because schools think it's a good thing to do.

All children in care have complex needs simply due to the issues surrounding being in care! No child is in care because life is rosy.

Schools are not set up to provide the level of support needed. I work at a school with a foundation for children who have lost a parent, the numbers are much lower than you are suggesting as these children deserve time and resources.

Mostly we have good outcomes but occasionally thier needs are too great for us to support. And this is a boarding school already set up for this support. A school that isn't could be a disaster for all concerned and further traumatise these vulnerable children.

Actually, it really can work in some cases. Also, it's not purely for children 'in care' - it can also be for children who have difficult circumstances at home eg a parent with complex health needs who struggles to cope looking after a child full time but might be able to manage school holidays.

Don’t Christ’s Hospital already have a similar scheme?

https://democracy.cityoflondon.gov.uk/documents/s150545/Christs%20Hospital%20Impact%20Report.pdf] 6 places for children in care in the year covered by this report eg

I know they offer a lot of funded places and I'd be surprised if they didn't also take part in this scheme, but I don't know for certain.

I have a child in prep (not at CH but at a different school) and would support our school doing this, but would not think it is appropriate to connect it to the VAT question.

Lots if schools have schemes similar to this already. Just one as an example https://www.reeds.surrey.sch.uk/594/what-the-foundation-does

Most of these are well established pastoral support. Increasing numbers or forcing schools without this model, needs to get very carefully managed.

All private school do charity work as part of thier charitable status. Making thus more transparent and having clear expectations would be preferable first, rather than forcing schools to take vulnerable students without due process.

The state does cover the costs for foster children

Not really. I think that's why there is such a shortage of foster homes.

Yes private education vs children's home great idea. Setting them up with a good education.

However you seem to be thinking of ways to avoid paying vat on fees by letting a few in. Selfish reasoning behind your idea.

No I wouldn’t.

There are loads of kids in the care system so how would you choose the few who get the places. Secondly, most kids in the care system will have experienced some kind of trauma and many display violent or disruptive behaviour. You can be bleeding hearts as much as you like but that’s not fair on the other boarders or staff.

You mean bring back the Assisted places scheme!

I know a couple of now adults who went to boarding school through this type of scheme. In principle it’s a good idea, but the children would need to be carefully selected as many in the care system are seriously traumatised and simply couldn’t adjust to the lifestyle. There was a BBC series akin to this a few years ago - they took bright kids out of ghettos and paid for them to go to - Eton I think. The results were variable.