How soon might a Labour Government put 20% VAT tax on private school fees?

[jennylamb1]

That really. Given that an election date has been declared for July, how soon might a Labour Government set their first budget?

@Araminta1003 your post summed up quite nicely why we are in private right now. @shockeditellyou sorry if my lived experience of Sen in state education offends you.

@Araminta1003 I think it was the Harold vs Jayden bit that was offensive.

Careful, your snobbery is showing.

But pleased to here it's purely about the SEN provision.

The policy is not about 'punishing the toffs' as you seem to think. If the 'toffs' don't notice it, then happy days.

It's about fairness. VAT is already a regressive tax as the less well off/ medium earners pay far more of their income in VAT than the wealthier. This is about redressing that and redistributing some funding to the state sector.

Inequality in education is a major issue, not just in terms of expenditure but also implications for society. There are many very sensible reasons why this is a good idea.

Just because a policy is unpopular with you doesn't make it populist.

Private school fees have gone up 50% in recent years.

Where has your campaigning been for those SEN children whose parents could have afforded it once but not anymore.

The gap between state funding and private funding per pupil has doubled.

Where are the cries of 'viciousness' and 'selfishness' about fee rises.

What is your advice to those parents whose budgets are currently 20% short?

I have just found my school fee invoice for 2017 and when I put the figure into an inflation calculator it shows that they have increased less than the rate of inflation. In any event, I know that lots of parents at my DC’s school have lobbied the school directly about fee rises. It’s been a hot topic for a number of years.

Yes I’m amazed you think schools aren’t aware of pre existing affordability problems and that people haven’t lobbied…so this is an argument about why not make things worse as they’re already bad? Ok…

I wish someone was running on opening up the private sector more with ways to make it more affordable, or increasing state pupil funding through taxation, I’d be all for it as I’ve said.

It’s populist because it’s anti EU principles that education is not VATable, (a thin end of the wedge issue), it raises little money and is being disingenuously used as a panacea for a bigger unaddressed crisis in state education.

it’s the definition of a populist look we’re doing something policy - the small boats of education policy. Why do you think labour leads with it? Because it focused grouped well by appealing to populism.

Our school does not make a profit - fees cover the cost of provision. Costs have gone up for maintaining the same level of provision, therefore fees must rise. There’s nothing vicious or selfish in the decision to increase fees, at least at my school.

agree with @Off99sitz that a better conversation to have would be around improving access to a higher level of provision.

It was offensive because you made it clear that state schools couldn’t possibly cope with a good musician or any kind of intellectual superiority.

There are many state schools that prize and reward academic and musical skills. They aren’t all full of knuckle dragging idiots.

You are missing my point.

Costs have gone up, state sector spending. Those 'same provisions' have been cut in the state sector. They don't have capital, investments, donations etc to absorb the rise.

Wages have not risen in line with inflation.

Private schools could have reduced provision to keep them affordable to the children with SEN who desperately need those smaller class sizes.

They could offer a few less extra-curricular activities to keep the costs down and make it affordable to those who need it.

But that's not what it's for is it.

I'd argue that you only care about people not affording it when you're the one not affording it.

To declare my interest, my son goes to a state grammar and loves it. He is doing very well. We could afford a tutor for 12 months plus theatre trips and national trust membership and all the other middle class privileges. He benefits from quiet classes and children who want to learn.

But i can't defend it. He benefits from an existing system whilst his mates at the secondary modern are put at a disadvantage. It's not fair, but it's in our favour

If labour suddenly announced they were getting rid of them it would harm us, but i couldn't tie myself in knots to claim it was wrong or unfair.

The state schools in catchments full of rich people, yes you’re right. To improve accessibility outstanding schools really do need to remove catchments and base admissions so kids on FSM get priority.

Again @Ozanj, massively offensive

Why? People who say they go to State in Investment banking / journalism often come from grammars or outstanding ‘millionaire catchment’ and the facilities available to them are on a par to privates. Eg 3 state schools in my area have swimming pools. This idea that attending outstanding state schools improves accessibility is bullshit. They will only do so when catchments are abolished & kids on fsm get priority everywhere

i don’t think it’s fair that I have to pay 20% vat to pay for my son with adhd to get the small class sizes and individual attention he wouldn’t get in State. Meanwhile my neighbour who is a millionaire is paying £10-15k a year on music / sports / private tutition / 11+ tuition to get her son into an 11+

Also the snobbery is insane - sucks to be Jayden with SEN if your mum and dad can’t navigate an EHCP process or find £15K a year in school fees.

SEN or not, anyone who can find £10-£15K a year for school fees is privileged. Might not feel like it, but there are a damn sight more kids with SEN whose parents can’t find that kind of money.

Because you're claiming that only children in rich catchments can do well or work hard.

Odds are stacked against them but it is possible.

You cannot argue for abolishing catchments for better social mobility but claim that private schools are fair and just dandy.

You are paying for privilege. House prices in wealthy catchments are paying for privilege. It's either fine or it's not. You don't get stamp duty exemption on the latter though.

The largest driver of cost is salaries, not extracurriculars. If you want to keep the class sizes small, and if you acknowledge that existing facilities need to be maintained, there isn’t much that is going to drastically reduce expenses in an established school

affordability is a concern, and I would support any policy that made it possible for more children to attend private. The issue isn’t so much that private schools spend too much per child, but rather that state funding is insufficient. I don’t view my children’s education as particularly luxurious on its own merits, it only looks luxurious compared to state.

Do you know what @Ozanj, no it's not fair.

My eldest son died. I had to close my business to care for him before that. We waited 3 months before we qualified for DLA and, because I was self-employed, got no other financial support. Our family income halved overnight and my husband wasn't able to take time off because we had a mortgage to pay.

That wasn't fair. It wasn't fair he was ill, it wasn't fair he died, and it wasn't fair that despite working hard and doing everything 'right' that all got taken away.

Life is full of things that aren't fair. It's not fair that your child is dyslexic and your neighbours isn't. It's not fair that some grandparents swoop in and stump up the fees. It's not fair that the same kid with 20% less family income than you can't afford the same privilege. It's not fair that there are children with SEN that private schools don't want.

None of it is fair.

It does not mean that the entire system is arranged around what you think is fair to you personally.

Exactly @Labraradabrador, state school teachers' salaries have declined 13% in real terms.

This seems an acceptable way to try to redress that.

But VAT on school fees is not going to address state school funding. Given the fall in birth rates it would be far better to have a policy to keep total state education spending as it is so that it increases per child. I agree that some private schools could do more to reduce costs but the ones with a high % of SEN kids don’t tend to be the ones that have much to play with.

How on earth is it going to address state school teachers salaries. There’s no commitment to increase them as part of this policy.

The point is that many state schools are NOT supporting those children.

some of this is resourcing and some of this is down to the curriculum expectations and ways schools are incentivised to focus their time and resources.

my dc is not particularly academic (not that I would call her or any child a ‘knuckle dragging idiot’), and when school revolves entirely around a couple of things she isn’t particularly capable at (important though they are) it is a very demotivating experience. Our private school is able to give her more individual support when needed, but also gives her lots of opportunities to excel in other areas that build her up. In her old state school extra interventions came during the already limited art, music and forest school time, meaning she spent all day struggling/ failing and was very much starting to see herself as ‘stupid’ and ‘bad at school’. School’s priority was to get as many children to pass SATS and everything else was seen as less important. For a child that is struggling, those extracurricular interests actually become more important.

If there is any money raised from this policy (and it might very well raise nothing or even cost tax payers), it isn’t going to teacher salaries. I fully support a fully funded educational sector, but this policy isn’t going to do that.

Funnily enough, almost all the state schools where my eldest went to school had their own pools, including the schools in the areas of greatest socioeconomic deprivation. It didn’t put them anywhere near on par with the privates but they were available for the local community to use.

@Labraradabrador i don't think anyone is questioning your motivation, or the benefits private education brings your child, or the inadequacy of the state provision at the moment.

We understand that. What we don’t understand is how undermining the provision which some parents have managed to make for their kids helps the position.