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.

I completely agree. It's been eye opening.

The grammar system ought to have been got rid of years ago. I’m 60 and went to a comp. People in the last yr of grammar schools where I lived went through the school as the last cohort. Our grammar schools became sixth form colleges. It was far from ideal for the final cohort, imagine how they felt in uniform while all the teenage sixth formers were in their own clothes. The voluntary aided pupils placed locally were the top passes and had been skimmed off by 2 private schools. Like Keir they got to stay but not pay. The only difference with Keir was that it seems to have been the whole school
that was voluntary aided.

If the government are committed to ending grammars then they should just do it. Becoming a comp won’t change much. It just gets rid of an anomaly from the past

This.

I'd have more sympathy if this concern extended to the education and well being of all children.

@SodOffbacktoaibu how do you think this policy will help social mobility and get rid of 2 tier education? How will it help state schools, and do you think the Eton’s of this world will be severely impacted?

If we're playing the "what if" game, what if Keir Starmer (or any child today) had to go to school without breakfast, in an unwashed uniform, after sleeping in "temporary" accommodation without enough mattresses to go around?

Taxing the well-off more is really, really, not an unpopular policy.

@Perplexed20 I think most private school parents would prefer that state schools were able to provide a proper education to all children than pay out the nose for appropriate provision in private. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem the VAT policy will improve the state schools, just make even more children suffer if their local option is not suitable for them.

I’d support the policy if I thought it would have meaningful impact on most state schools, but it won’t. The way this policy has been used to garner votes during an election is shameful as they are using the improvement of state schools as a selling point without actually doing anything that will make meaningful difference.

It's not about the impact on Eton. It's about the impact of extra funds on state schools.

Do all VAT charges need to lead to 'meaningful change'?
Which other VAT charges have achieved this?

@SodOffbacktoaibu but there will be very little extra funds for state school from this policy, so it’s going to do nothing to help state schools

I’d support the policy if I thought it would have meaningful impact on most state schools, but it won't
What sort of impact on state schools did you imagine it might have?

@Notonthestairs The Labour Party themselves have claimed the VAT funds will be used to improve state schools. What in the world is the point if it doesn’t?

@S1lverCandle I don’t imagine it will have much impact, which is why I think it’s a bad policy.

Many people are going to be sadly disappointed when they realise this policy will have no meaningful impact on state schools

Well @crumblingschools we will see I suppose. But I think the intention is right. We need to do much, much more to close the rich and poor gap that has got so out of control over the last twenty years.

The private school mumsnetters might like to call us spiteful, but the patronising tone of your elitist "we know better..." posts is not covering your position in glory.

I actually think private school and possibly home ed should be got rid if on safeguarding grounds if nothing else.

What other VAT charges do you feel produced meaningful change?

@SodOffbacktoaibu I’m not a private school parent but am involved in state school finance, and this policy is not going to help, and in fact might help to make the divide bigger.

@Notonthestairs but many people support this policy as it’s going to help state education, change social mobility, get rid of private schools etc etc. And it is going to do nothing of the kind, and in fact some calculations show that it might actually be a net cost policy, so how the hell does that help state education

Agree why do something if there’s no gain? Especially since some dc will be negatively impacted

The idea is to use funds for extra teachers. If @crumblingschools is right about net cost then that doesn’t happen

Seems to me that people pay VAT as charged. Money goes to the Government who spends it as they wish.

But this VAT charge is held to a much higher standard.

This money must produce radical/significant/meaningful change - or else the money is deemed pointless.

It's nonsense. The law will change, VAT will be charged, it will go into the pot and will be spent by the Government like every other VAT payment. Schools or some schools will receive some additional funding.

Nobody sensible is pretending this will change the face of education. Or that is its role.

“I actually think private school and possibly home ed should be got rid if on safeguarding grounds if nothing else.“

I have a good friend whose DD is autistic and tried to commit suicide twice due to bullying in her state comp. Home Ed literally saved her life!

A one size fits all does not work in the real world. I am not sure if my friend is going to have to pay VAT on online schooling or if the council will eventually pay for her DD’s online schooling. She has been trying to get through the EHCP progress but not there yet. It is a nightmare where she lives and I think she just does not have the mental capacity/energy for it given what she has already been through with her DD.

Accessing public services in this country including for children with disabilities has become shockingly difficult.

Did you know he once had a beer and owns a field in Surrey?

It’s meant to fund 6,500 extra teachers according to Labour

So if it’s a net cost as @crumblingschools posts then it seems a mistake and bad idea

@SodOffbacktoaibu It is Labour's job to run the country, not have good intentions. They need to make changes that will actually improve state schools because in some places the conditions are dire.

And FWIW I don’t think they do have good intentions. I think they intentionally used this policy to gain support under false pretences.

“Nobody sensible is pretending this will change the face of education. Or that is its role.“

The Manifesto claims otherwise.

If VAT is charged and more and more kids enter the state system as a result, then the taxpayer has to fork out more for educating those children at a cost of £4000-£8000 per yer per child.
Taxes are imposed to make money, not to lose it?
When they imposed the 50% additional tax rate they backtracked back to 45% because introducing that extra 5% resulted in an actual loss.
Nobody taxes something that produces an actual loss. They may try to do it, but then backtrack if it does not work as intended.