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.

@Hedgerow2 shouldn't we be trying to improve state school not reducing private school to the same low standards that state schools have had to do due to crap funding. And this policy by the way isn't going to raise sufficient funds to do anything for state schools

Look, I didn't want to move my dd midway through her schooling either, I get it. I turned down a dream job for that very reason, even though everyone assured me that dd would have been absolutely fine. I actually believe that she would have been fine - most kids are. But I didn't want to disrupt her life in that way.

The thing is, if parents with kids at private schools feel that way, why on earth have they invested in an expensive education that they can't afford to maintain. The VAT policy has been a possibility for years, so they must have known that it would be a possibility. Why didn't they either save up more to pay the difference or send their kids to a state school instead? They surely can't be claiming now that they never saw it coming?!

That is utter nonsense. Most independents are not making profits. Many are just covering themselves. There is no chance that anything other than the very wealthiest of schools could conceive of absorbing a 20% fee increase.

I find it hard to believe that most schools couldn't absorb the increase if they chose to do so. Even if they absorbed the full amount (which would probably be a bit less than 20% because of what they could reclaim), their budget per pupil would still be way higher than the budget per pupil within the state sector, and many state schools manage to provide a really fantastic education despite the limited resources. With so much more to spend even after the VAT is factored in, I d don't see why private schools couldn't do the same.

Standard old Labour. Do as we say, not do as we do.

Yes but sensible parents avoid switching kids at "disruptive" points I.e. year 7, year 10 and year 12 are better points to move if doing GCSEs / A-levels - no idea about IB etc

Well of course we should!

What, because Keir Starmer didn’t have to move schools when he was a kid it’s hypocritical of them to have a policy that might cause other children to? 🤨

Happens all.the time? But not usually because of intervention by the state. And there is something special about a government which produces so many poor quality schools and which wants to force all children to go to one. Equal misery for all.

Starmer has said he doesn’t think many children will need to move, despite the many families saying they won’t be able to afford it. He doesn’t seem genuinely interested in how this policy will actually play out in either independent or state schools.

State school education has been such a low priority for so long that it seems parents with children in state are willing to accept this policy as “better than nothing” even though it won’t actually do anything.

The thing is OP …

The majority of people don’t care.

A minority of people do care because they are spiteful and relish the idea of “rich kids” being adversely affected.

A different minority have kids at private school and so care a bit, but it is only a subset of this minority who care a lot.

Pupils move from state school to state school so no different if a pupil at a private school has to move to a state school. If parents want to continue to pay for private school places, totally up to them (we paid from ages 4-18). If not a place will be found for the ex private school pupils in a state school

It's a very popular policy. What are you talking about?

Most schools can mitigate this if they want to. Our local day school is raising class sizes from 15 to 18 to cover the impact. Something most state schools can only dream about. Plus remember the actual impact is less than 20 % as schools can reclaim VAT on their spending

This whole issue is really putting me off MN just now. I never realised how entitled and very well off middle class this place is.

I would have considered myself middle class and doing ok but I couldn't ever afford private school for my child. Equally his school has a host of problems from crumbling buildings to poor behaviour and not enough teachers. I can't bear the whining from people on this issue.

I'm perfectly fine with this policy. If you want to complain, take it up with your private schools who are presumably not going to take less profit but are passing on cost to their customers. If you don't like it, then welcome to our world. If state schools were decent for everyone then it wouldn't be such an outcry. Why does my child deserve less than yours?

I'd love to have a more equal society and better social mobility in this country. We'll never have that with two tier education. The privileged want to keep their privilege. Big surprise.

Moving school is not that big a deal - I moved because my school closed, and it was fine.

A parent who can't afford vat on school fees basically can't afford private school (same as most of us) and were always putting their child in a precarious position by sending them.

I wonder how many of the parents at such schools drive SUVs or other expensive cars. Perhaps that should be the first thing they get rid of to help afford any fee increases.

Or is it just the local fee paying schools near me.

Children of serving soldiers, attend on average three primary schools in their primary years, alone. Plus the same again during secondary.

Schools with majority service pupils can have a turnover of 90%, sometimes per year.

They get on with it!

Keith Starmer ruled out moving his kids to a school closer to Downing Street because it would be “too dispruptive”. Complete hypocrisy. Do as I say not as I do.

Well, it's not exactly hypocrisy, is it? The policy is not actually about forcing people to change their children's school against their will. A side effect of the policy might be that a very small number of the parents with children at private schools will no longer be able to afford it. Obviously those parents will be worried and upset, which is quite natural. But most parents don't send their children to private school, so it doesn't affect them, and most that do will probably not struggle to find the extra fees.

You know, when you follow it to its logical conclusion, it’s quite extraordinary that this is a Labour and not a Conservative policy.

If the Tories had thought of it first they could have put 500% VAT rate on private schools to keep all the wannabes/plebs out, and used the tax take to fund tax cuts for the highest earners.

After all, as many people have pointed out, it’s only those who are stretched and are struggling to pay it that are affected. The truly rich are not affected in the slightest. So both Labour and Tory want the gap to widen.

Yawn. He'd have got on with it, along with millions of others.

But he didn't need to move his children ... Are you suggesting he should have done so to show solidarity with parents who can no longer afford private school fees?!

Really? You honestly think there is nobody other than middle class Mumsnet that talks unfavourably about it?! Maybe you should educate yourself before making such an ignorant comment.