What if Keir Starmer had been forced to move school part way through?

[Kitsot]

I find it interesting that Keir Starmer attended a state grammar school and was allowed to stay on for free after it moved to private whilst he was there. He doesn’t seem to consider it an issue that children will need to be moved from private to state school part way through their time at a school due to the VAT imposition. I wonder how different his life would have turned out if he had instead been forced to leave his school and move to the local comprehensive or wherever had space.

Further to this, to me it would make more sense if VAT was only added to fees for children joining at the usual entry points from next September and then going forward for those years from that point. It would still be an unpopular policy but it would at least give parents time to apply for state schools within the normal entry rounds and children wouldn’t need to move school part way through, which can be hard even if it is between two similar types of schools. The downside is that it wouldn’t initially raise as much money as planned.

Just for transparency to add that I am in a fairly neutral position regarding this and have experience of both sectors. I myself am from a working-class background and went to a bog-standard comprehensive in the 1980s.

Lots of kids move schools though. In fact of the children I know it’s the ones in private schools that are switching. Lots I know have felt that the school isn’t right for their child, too academic, not pushy enough, not enough sports, too small or having to leave because the school asks them too, or cannot carry on to senior school. Kids will manage.

Why do you think it's an unpopular policy? The only people talking unfavourably about is middle class Mumsnet. Most people appear to either not care, or think it's a great idea.

Yes, I should have said unpopular with those who wish or need to educate their children privately, which is what I meant. Just to be clear, by “need”, I am referring to when there may be specific circumstances, but what they may be and/or the rights and wrongs of those is not the point of this thread.

What about all the children in state schools (well over 90% of the population) who have to change school because the current one isn’t meeting their needs due to underfunding, short of staff etc? Something needs to be done - where do you suggest the money comes from?

I'm not middle class mumsnet.

We live in a deprived area where the 2 local high schools are in special measures and the other requires improvement. Our joint income is slightly higher than the bursary scheme supports so my DH does overtime and I had a 2nd job so that our youngest can go to an independent. Neither of us went to uni, we both work in blue collar jobs and are definitely not middle class.

Over half of her friends are from families like us or the rest are perhaps slightly more or less affluent. It's not Cheltenham Ladies College or Gordonstoun. 1 in 3 is bursaried. I don't agree with the policy, because if she'd been Y7 now, we'd have to find a state school place, or we'd need take out a loan to keep her there when the policy comes in.

So many families made difficult choices and are borderline. Other children from struggling families got the chance of social mobility through a bursary. It's not all landed gentry at independent schools.

I moved country and school - it happens. Nothing special about it. Happens across the country every year.

Lots of kids move school, it doesn’t automatically lead to failure.

I can’t remember who said it in the Labour Party, but private schools have increased their fees year on year, above inflation, and there’s never been an issue with children having to drop out. Parents who send their children to private school have always managed those increases so I’m sure those who want to will manage the VAT. Or the private schools themselves will pay the VAT themselves - it’s not like they don’t have enough profit.

I don’t disagree with the VAT policy in principle, I just that think that maybe it could be done more slowly. An additional point is that due to the fall in birth rate, school years are progressively getting smaller and so there is an excess of spaces in the lower years - where I live (which I acknowledge isn’t necessarily the same everywhere), primary schools are requesting to reduce their PANs, whilst at secondary level, there are children who are having to be bused to schools 10-20 miles away by the council due to a shortage of local places - mostly who have moved to the area outside of the normal entry points. Introducing the VAT more slowly could also mean that in the long run it is more successful and legal challenges would be harder.

Both my DDs went to primary and secondary schools that were RI schools whilst they were there. I didnt need to pay for their education, they are both highly successful women because they work hard and we supported them.

Children move schools all the time, op. It doesn't have a huge impact.
If you can't afford increased school fees, you can't afford private education 🤷🏻‍♀️

Well, what if he had moved schools?

Lots of kids move schools for all manner of different reasons. Many of them do extremely well regardless.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here?

Moving schools is normal, in fact it's traditional to move schools at 13 anyway

I think Keir Starmer would have been fine - seems like a clever bloke.

Lots of people move schools, many more people will be moving state to state than private to state at any given point.
My only caveat would be moving children in Y11 (or Y13) but hopefully parents have had time to realise this and if they can't manage one year of fees, that they move them sooner. Perhaps schools could provide some assistance for Y11?

Further to this, to me it would make more sense if VAT was only added to fees for children joining at the usual entry points from next September

I'm fairly in favour of the vat being added to private school fees...but I actually think this is a really good idea and would be much fairer.

I'm going against the grain here. Children do move school all the time for good reasons and bad and of course they are fine longer term.

But there is evidence that moving school has an impact on learning. It can take a good half term to learn routines and make new friends so moving can put learning on the back burner during that half term. Moving multiple times has a particularly negative affect. It's part of why forces chikdren get a pupil premium style payment in state schools.

I dont think changing sector matters, but moving outside normal transition times isn't ideal.. Particularly if a child has already moved as their state school wasn't right.

I think people are being particularly mean pretending it has no impact because they like the policy.

I went to a comp and we moved areas and it really affected my sibling. My eldest also went to a comp and not moving areas during his time there was important to me.

Being priced out is a risk you take when you decide to start privately educating. You've been priced out. You must have known this could happen, if not from a VAT rule change, then a fee increase, job loss or change, sudden large expense etc

That was your risk to take and it's been realised.

Increase in income tax.

85% of tax payers only pay 20% tax. That's too low.

I'm glad. They especially deserve to be highly successful. I went to the school that is RI and it the same as it was when I was there. Very tough to get an education with the levels of classroom disruption, bullying and uninterested teachers. I worked hard, even did extra at night school where my dad worked - my parents supported me, but it wasn't enough because my peers were shoplifting and fighting. I didn't want that for my daughter.

Half the children in your daughters private school are from working class backgrounds? what nonsense. I have has children in two private schools, one or two if you are lucky.

Absolutely!

Parents chose to send their children to a private school knowing that the fees may (and probably will) rise every year well above the rate of inflation.

Kier's parent's sent him to a state school with no inkling whatsoever that it would become private.

I say this as a parent who sent my children to private school then moved one of them to the state system.

I’m all for that too!

Is it necessarily the case that parents will need to cover the vat increase? I don't see why private schools can't absorb at least some of it themselves. They could make some of the difficult decisions state schools have to make every term and reduce staffing, close facilities etc.