To have though of a fairer way to fund state education than VAT on private?

[wlakaaf]

State schools are in desperate need of funding.

Money needs raising.

Instead of sticking 20% onto private fees - when those people are already paying 100% of the costs for educating their child, how about this:

Parents of children currently in state schools ought to contribute to their education on a means tested basis. There would be no argument over means, it would be a simple reference to the council tax band of the house you live in. We have bands A-H. I would propose that people in band A-F pay nothing. People in band G pay a fixed charge per year and people in band H pay a higher fixed charge per year.

Keir Starmer has used money to buy a massively expensive house, worth in the region of £2m, in the very tight catchment of a lovely state primary. This is buying privilege, same as buying private education. So why does he get away without paying?

PS my post was in response to all the pp who are claiming they had ‘no choice’ but to go private as their DCs couldn’t possibly go to the local school and so it’s not their fault if they can’t afford it.

It’s slightly batshit to identify those who need to contribute more by choosing the ones already paying the most tax.
The higher tax bracket is the extra contribution.
Private schools already save with unqualified teachers, lower pay, lower pension contributions and tax breaks through the charitable (cough) status they have. They can swallow some of the cost frankly, sell art, grounds or whatever to save their parents. They are pretty insulated from reality at the moment

Private school parents have a choice about paying. Private school is a luxury, VAT is paid on luxuries.

Just looked at data for a grammar school and a non selective state secondary school in the same town. One had 5% of pupils on FSM and the other had 27%, I don’t need to tell you which one had the lowest percentage

A simple Google search will tell you that is incorrect

We don't have grammar schools in Wales so maybe they'll be phased out next?

You can think that VAT on private school fees is a good idea, without believing that grammar schools are a good idea.
The vast majority of people who support VAT on school fees also don't send their kids to a super selective grammar.

@mileenderr but why are private school parents being targeted, to remove inequality.

Exactly, they were being closed long before Maggie!

I am not sure where all this angst is coming from. There is no justification for it. The state does not have enough money to be giving tax breaks to private schools. The simple truth is that when most people need to use public services such as state education, social care or the NHS, it opens their eyes to what is needed and they vote accordingly. Whilst the better off can bypass latge class sizes, no trips, lack of teachers, poor behaviour etc etc, they have absolutely no incentive to engage in improving these. The government's job is to run and improve these services not give tax breaks to those who can afford to drop out regardless of how many jobs they do or how much they drive cheap cars or give up holidays etc etc.

@cansu but this policy isn’t helping getting rid of inequality or helping state schools

No, but that extra money will help someone somewhere.

Private eduction is a luxury, it should be taxed appropriately.

But can you not also see that grammar schools not being targeted because it benefits the rich, like Starmer and his buddies, is unfair when they are using funding from the state pot?

If anything I think it will increase their desire for more grammar schools. In the richest areas possible - make the pubic pay for their super selective free route to Oxbridge.

Agree. State system needs a the funding it can get. Any money available needs to go into state education. It really is very simple.

How are you supposed to target grammar schools exactly? Add VAT onto their non-existent fees? Charge people to use them so that they become even more exclusive?
Also, Starmer didn't send his children to selective schools....

Unless someone had many children in school, it's unlikely that it would cost more for the schooling fee than stopping work.

You only need to look at how pre-school works in this country. Your job must be really really worth it to shell out nursery fees. Otherwise just be a SAHM for as long as it takes. I'm not sure you want the secondary education to go the same way.

I'm saying they won't target them, because it benefits them. They'll make the public pay while keeping it exclusive as they do now.

The richest people I know use the grammar system and laugh at the fact they can and that it boosts their chances of Oxbridge because of the weighting. New cars, holidays, houses abroad. This is just their way of pulling people down who weren't clever enough to get in or have SEN, which grammar schools despise.

Their mates who can afford to stay in private will probably laugh about it with them at Oxbridge.

@PanicAttax - I disagree with a couple of things in your recent post.

My children went to grammars - there are lots of children with SEN attending; they also have had refugee children attend - one of whom got the highest mark in the country for a maths Olympiad last year - not every child in the school is rich. They make additional places available to children who are on FSM or on pupil premium and there is a charity in the town who offers 11+ tuition for free to some of the most disadvantaged children in the area - and they have a strong success rate. The inequality is perpetuated here by the local authority insisting that the state primaries may NOT offer any 11+ style coaching, whilst the preps market themselves as preparing their children for the test. It is the state which is disadvantaging children and I find this deeply frustrating. Having helped out with reading and in the classroom at the (state primary) school my children attended, there were some very bright children whose parents said that grammars 'aren't for us' because they couldn't afford the tutoring costs - even though some of them would have passed if the school had done some basic NVR/VR type practice with them....but the LA doesn't allow it.

Grammar school pupils don't get any priority for Oxbridge - contextual offers are made on postcode, so applicants from the school are marked down for being as privileged as the children applying from the big name private schools locally - my eldest did succeed, but because he worked his socks off, he scored high enough in the entrance tests to get an interview and then secured the grades he needed for his place - he didn't have huge support/help from the school. (I am not claiming that he's not privileged to have attended an amazing state grammar - but he was determined enough to have a crack at Oxbridge even if he'd gone to one of the other excellent comprehensives we have locally)

Many of the private prep school parents no longer get in to the grammar school because the catchment was changed to prioritise local children and the % of state school attendees shot up - albeit we are in a nice town, but not everyone attending is extremely rich or privileged. Getting into Oxbridge gets harder every year, as the number of people applying increases (due to their excellent outreach programmes) but the number of places stay the same - I don't think any of the parents I went through the uni application process with (from my eldest's cohort) expected them to get in because we were laughing whilst 'gaming a system' and not paying fees.

I don't have an issue with VAT being charged on fees IF it would achieve better state provision, more teachers, better buildings, more art, drama, soft skills etc that private schools do so well (and from which I benefitted), BUT this policy is just a gimmick, and is based on class envy to give the left wing of the Labour party a sop - it is not going to do any of the above - in fact it's going to harm state education, and SEND children in particular.

I do however think that private schools should pay the business rates - our school for example has a tiny site and pays over £180k a year for rates - the wealthy prep down the road with acres of playing fields, swimming pools, space etc pays £45k because they are a charity - which isn't equitable. (Should be the same for NHS/Private hospitals too.)

The richest people I know use the grammar system and laugh at the fact they can and that it boosts their chances of Oxbridge because of the weighting. New cars, holidays, houses abroad. This is just their way of pulling people down who weren't clever enough to get in or have SEN, which grammar schools despise.

Big surprise here - rich people are just as entitled to state funded education as yourself.

@Panicmode1 many state schools can claim rate relief

@crumblingschools Thank you for the correction - I accept the rules may have changed since I was a practising surveyor...some moons ago 😁

Still disagree walking away from a bullying problem because you have money and sod the poor kids isn't right .....and if you can afford private fees you know it's going to cost you more than the advertised price and can go up at any time if your border line next year you might not afford it anyway.

What are you saying fee paying parents will give up work rather than pay VAT?

@jannier so if you can buy a car with more safety features, or buy a bigger house so everyone doesn't have to share one bedroom, would you not do that because poorer families can't? Would you only live in a catchment area where housing is cheap as the school provision is dire because it wouldn't be fair otherwise (and I'm not talking about the only other option being buying a million pound house in an exclusive state school area)

@Panicmode1 I am also in a grammar area and they don't allow in school tutoring. As you say this is where huge privilege came into it with rich parents tutoring from y1 - ridiculous amounts, every weekend. The kids are being trained to pass and it just increased the divides between rich and poor.

If you take that to London where Starmer's super selective Oratory school is next to schools with 44% FSM and his is 16% you can see how the inequalities fall. His kid is in a much more privileged position than all the kids in the schools around them, because he was tutored after attending a primary in a catchment full of people who can afford tutoring.

The boys grammar here had 1 kid on FSM last year at GCSE.
My relatives school has more than 3 kids on full bursaries in his year alone.