Labour confused and arguing among themselves over VAT on school fees

[Another76543]

This policy is getting more ridiculous by the day.

We have the shadow Attorney General who doesn’t understand the basic concept that the VAT position and charitable status are entirely separate issues. She also doesn’t understand that it’s parents and not schools who will pay the charge.

“the question is, is it appropriate in these circumstances for schools, such as in Eton or Winchester or whatever, to be seen as a charity and that, therefore, they should not be paying VAT on the huge fees”

This statement is factually incorrect on two things.

She also seems to think that any money raised will be spent on breakfast for children. The potential money has already been allocated to new teachers. They seem to think they can spend the same money twice.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-labour-institute-for-fiscal-studies-education-secretary-winchester-b2559439.html

The Party are also now fighting among themselves over this proposal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-bridget-phillipson-labour-david-lynch-london-b2559684.html#

“sign of divisions within Sir Keir Starmer’s party over the policy”

No, not being nasty, I'm genuinely confused. How can a teacher be online during lesson time? You ask a fair question about some of the other posters, as well!

Look at the time of year? If your timetable was majority Year 13, what do you think is happening right now?

Although today and yesterday I've been ill in bed tbf.

But are the kids in their first year of A Level doing exams too? Totally off point, but one of the worst things they did was spread out the exams so young almost adults are studying all the time!

Hard agree here - I see absolutely no justification for exempting dance or sports based schools. They are far more elite than any other form of education and exist for the benefit of the art/sport not the child - most children won't ultimately have a career in that area and potentially would have been better off in mainstream schools. It's pretty morally dubious to push children into highly specialist physical work orientated training at a young age at the expense of ordinary schooling.

I thought private school
Economics teachers have to do trips at this time of the year to the US to go see the White House and Fed so the elite year 10s understand the real source of power in this country?

Or did your trip get cancelled @alladinzane because your parent group is in fact worried about forking out thousands and thousands more, after all?

I may not explain this very well but my reasons for listing those categories are:-

If you have a talented musician/dancer/sportsperson, the tutition and support just isn’t available either via a state school or sometimes even where you live. As an example, if you have a talented (and I mean conservatoire level as a child) musician, and don’t live in London there are limited options to access highly specialised tuition/support. Specialist music schools provide everything they need to progress.
Similarly, the level of teaching to become a top level dancer isn’t available from your local dance school.
For sport, state schools don’t have the facilities or provide the support to compete at a high level. As an example, a friend was not allowed by the local state school to miss lessons for elite training. They said it would impact on attendance figures. The pupil moved to boarding school (under sports scholarship, parents are not wealthy at all) where they were supported and the pupil allowed to catch up on missed lessons during evening prep time.

There could be other talents, so I’m not saying this list is all the categories that should be exempted by talent. These are the ones I have more of an understanding about.

I know most private schools have entrance exams but many pupils who remain in state would also pass these. There could be a few exceptions but this wouldn’t necessarily mean the pupil is highly talented, unlike the sports person who could be in the top 10 in the country at their sport or the musician who is already playing at professional level as a 13 year old.

“Hard agree here - I see absolutely no justification for exempting dance or sports based schools. They are far more elite than any other form of education and exist for the benefit of the art/sport not the child”

Art/culture/sport are a significant part of our economy and heritage etc etc and it is worth the future investment. It is not about elite or morality is it. It is meant to be about what makes sense for us as a country and our future. And to disadvantage the arts even if they are part of the elite middle classes is just another form of self harm. Not everyone lives in London and can send their child to the Royal Academy of Music on Saturday. For many children who are talented, this is their only chance.

I agree - I have a friend who is a SAHM (she previously had a professional job) and her husband has lost his job so they are living on benefits at the mo whilst panicking about money and issues at school - she said she can't go back to work because of all of the school stuff and "mum" get togethers she'd miss. I'm not saying she could afford private school (at least whilst her husband isn't working but perhaps prior to that they could have) but honestly she does have choice about her income generally. I don't go to "mum stuff" - I work FT - that's just how it is and it's my choice - I've never moaned about others privilege in doing "mum stuff".

And whilst we're talking privilege, privilege comes in many different forms - I wasn't born privileged by any means - I worked hard for that "privilege". On the other hand, we don't have the privilege of grandparents because they're all dead - and I'm constantly being told what a positive impact on children's lives they have. The reality is, privilege comes in so many forms. I'm privileged that my children are healthy.

Hard agree here - I see absolutely no justification for exempting dance or sports based schools.

In my example, the pupil went to an ordinary boarding school but was able to pursue their sport. Staying in state would have meant them giving up the opportunity to be able to pursue the sport they loved and are very good at.
In the same manner then, do you think that we should ban all professional football clubs from running academies? Those children don’t attend normal school, they do a small number of GSCE’s alongside football training.

Not talking about all pupils at selective private schools, but those kids who are exceptionally talented at eh maths/computing are going to be really important to our security in the future, never mind the economic contribution! Surely a pupil like this at Milfield is every bit as important as an elite sportsman? [edited to add] of course those kids may be in any school, but only some schools will allow them to exel

Just testing your argument - I don’t have an axe to grind either way really

Btw, what’s an ‘ordinary boarding school’, do you mean state?

My concern about private specialist sports and dance schools is that a significant percentage of children at those schools won't eventually have a successful career in those disciplines. Ballet training is brutal and both dancers and sports people have very short careers. I love sports and dance but I don't think they should have VAT exemption when no other aspect of education does. High quality general education is of much greater value to society than UK elite sport performance or dance.

I think maybe because when it comes to Academics, we still have Imperial/Oxbridge etc etc and when it comes to sports and music, the earlier training is more important? Especially in sports because their careers by their very definition peak earlier.
Dina Asher-Smith and Emma Radacanu went to the same grammar in London but their training was supported locally quite adequately in their mid teens. So I think when it comes to those living in places like London the argument is different. The top Saturday music schools in London are probably just as good as many top private schools, if not better. The path here is Saturday music school and then Conservatoire later. You just need to have actual access to the top instrumental teachers which you can obviously get in London.

I assume this question was for me.

As someone who has had nothing to do with the private sector, that’s how I would describe a boarding school not linked to a speciality such as music schools/dance schools. Music/dance schools select purely on the basis of your ability in that field rather than by entrance tests.

Having to change school is not a severe harm. Children do it all the time. Having to go to state school is that a severe harm? Is that what you mean?

Many of the other quotes you appear to attribute to me were said by other people not me. But why brag about your huge tax contributions in this country? Do you actually have any empathy for poorer people? Are you actually expecting me to be grateful you earn so much and pay so much tax? You are exceptionally privileged. I don’t dislike you for that but I am not grateful for your tax contributions.

Other families challenges are relevant because you view your situation and that of others like you as so severe. Perspective is helpful.

https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/services/consulting/perspectives/elite-sport-as-a-catalyst-for-economic-growth-and-societal-change.html

Ah, ok. To me, all private boarding schools seem really exclusive (except those supporting special needs) and not at all ordinary - but I get your point

I think you have summed it up perfectly. If you are London based then yes, the opportunities are there. My argument is based on the talented children who live too far away to access any of that. Going to specialist boarding schools is sometimes the only viable option.

I do think this thread is very London centric and sometimes some posters forget that outside London, opportunities are far more limited.

Just to play devil's advocate here... it's not entirely true that this isn't available via state provision (with the exception of White Lodge).

DD's comp has specialist music and sports streams and turns out a number of premier division footballers and other sports men and women.

They provide specialist coaching in school and are extremely flexible when it comes to time off for those with professional commitments in both areas. They select 15% of the cohort via aptitude testing.

On the other hand, an argument why an exception should be made for sport/dance and not for academics is that dancers and sportspeople on the whole have an extremely limited window and need intensive training at a young age. You're unlikely to be prima ballerina at 50 whereas you may well be a FTSE 100 CEO.

So what if they won't have careers out of it? even if it keeps them out of streets for now.

This is the entire mindset of the country now - if it doesn't benefit everyone let's take it away from individuals who do benefit.

2.5% (average of 2% and 3%) of 20% (the number of people in the 2nd and 3rd deciles) is 0.5% of the UK population. 50% of 1% is 0.5% of the UK population.

Doesn't that imply that there are as many children from the 2nd and 3rd deciles in private schools as from the top 1%? Yes, the top 1% is over-represented, but a policy which hits all private school children will affect as many children from the 2nd and 3rd deciles as from the top percentile. And the children from the 2nd and 3rd deciles will be affected much more significantly than the children from the top decile.

i am absolutely sure there are some people could send their kids to private school that opt for state. But I suspect the majority cannot. With the average wage being £35,000 before tax it seems unlikely especially if they have more than 1 child. I could be wrong but I bet lots of those stay at home parents would not be able to earn the average wage. Also I bet lots are parents of preschool kids or babies. It is really hard to know the circumstances of those stay at home parents.

“I do think this thread is very London centric and sometimes some posters forget that outside London, opportunities are far more limited.”

Yes, and I think even tabling the VAT policy is very London centric. That is the whole point. That is why I think some key MPs need to go and visit private schools in different regions across the UK to actually understand what they are about to do to those schools and communities. And I do not think it is enough to say oh well they are all middle class children anyway and will be fine (because their parents will make sure they are). What I am hearing is real anger and hurt from some of these professional parents. But maybe I just have more empathy.
What I absolutely cannot get on board with is harming SEN children in the private sector. That is a complete red line for me.

@Runor except those super bright math/computing students might not want to stay here anymore:

London pupils win 'life changing' scholarships to top US universities (yahoo.com)

They now turn down Oxbridge and move to US, no matter PS or state school. This trend is now profound in top selective PS

@OhCrumbsWhereNow
Just to play devil's advocate here... it's not entirely true that this isn't available via state provision (with the exception of White Lodge).

We will have to agree to disagree then. My DC went to 5 schools between them between 11-18 (they chose different ones). Not one had an orchestra (took up too much time for the music teacher in one school as they were also the SEN lead). One DC was given a detention for missing a lesson because she was at an authorised external music event. This same school wouldn’t accommodate my friends talented sportsperson and would put any absence for sport training as unauthorised. My experience is state schools don’t support anything that could impact on any measure looked at by Ofsted (attendance/attainment).

Not sure what White Lodge is.