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.

Kids move schools. Pretty sure Keir would have been fine.

It would be great if something as simple as VAT on private schools would fix the social mobility and rich/poor divide that has grown globally in the last 20 years. It is a global issue. There are a ton of internationally mobile rich people with 3 passports who can do exactly as they please pretty much and nought any Government appears to be able to do about it because Dubai/Monaco/Switzerland/Ireland etc etc seems to be more than happy to welcome them and their assets with open arms.

I don’t see why he might have been concerned about moving to a state comprehensive. They aren’t some kind of lawless dump, they are schools where pretty much all children, apart from a tiny privileged minority, attend and receive a good education.

What I am scandalized by is that no one had any idea that this would be Starmer's policy since he didn't have any plans before he came Prime Minister.

Really this is far to important and we ought to have a vote on it.

Plenty of spaces at secondary in my county. You might not get the best or the closest but you would get a place.

What I think is total gaslighting is the fact that Labour have managed to make everyone believe that the money needed for state schools needs to come from private school parents - the only group 100% guaranteed not to directly benefit from the tax.

I cannot believe millions have fallen for it. The money could have been raised by putting an additional tax on foreign holidays or in any number of ways or from the general taxation pot. But no, Starmer has actually got people believing that it must come from private school parents.

We have lost our ability to think critically.

What's the safeguarding risk in private schools?

Not to mention that Keir was named after the first Labour MP and was politically active at 16. No way should he have stayed on for 6th form when the school had turned private. OK for him, but not for anyone else. The ultimate irony being that the school turned private because Labour decided in the 60s to close grammar schools.

In the 90s, Labour abolished assisted places.

Labour make massive assaults on the education sector. This private VAT will do nothing to help the state sector in reality. It’s a naked assault on private education.

Our local private school has on excess of £3m in their reserves. They have continued to put up their fees.

Why aren't private school parents questioning this.

We have lost our critical thinking skills.

I don’t think that is actually relevant to my point, which is that people have been hoodwinked into believing that the only source of money for state schools is private VAT.

I agree it’s a big ask for a VAT charge, but our current government have themselves claimed there will be meaningful impact from this policy so this is where we are. I agree it’s ridiculous.

How is it hypocrisy?

If you don't want to move your child, then pay the tax and keep them where they are.

If you can't afford to pay the tax, that's on you for choosing a school that you couldn't reliably afford.

Starmer is not responsible for your poor choices as a parent.

@crumblingschools fair enough, though I find yours an odd stance working in the state sector, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I found this article from a Durham Uni professor which is interesting. He says even IF the financial result cancels out because so many parents pull their kids out of private school and we have to fund more state places, there are still benefits in making society more equal.

https://theconversation.com/labours-plan-to-tax-private-school-fees-has-drawbacks-but-it-could-be-better-for-society-231201

Well if they employ 6,500 more teachers then I guess you'll all relax.

They've got 5 years to implement it.

Private school pupils often result from inadequate state provision. If you have the choice of a bad state school or paying to go private, I wouldn’t call that a poor choice.

Yes. More equal. But if that equalness is overall lower, then we lose overall.

Well he is responsible for the 20% hike. So yeh it’s him behind the policy

So keep the privilege for the few then?

I think it is.
They put their fees up by 5% every year.
That sounds like a business and not a charity.
I'm amazed, using my critical thinking skills that this hasn't been questioned before.

To be fair they let the locals use the swimming pool sometimes which they charge for, and the annual fire work display, which they charge for...nothing like a business...

@SodOffbacktoaibu my stance is because people have been misled by this policy and think it’s going to achieve so many things, and it isn’t. Nothing has really been said how they are going to sort out the problems in state school, which is what needs to be concentrated on, not this policy

Good question. Some obviously could absord the costs, or sell off land or assets for housing like the State system has been forced to.
https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/revealed-private-schools-highest-surpluses

Nothing about private school is fair so I don't really understand why private school parents demand fairness now.

Well, I do, but I don't understand why they think anyone else is buying it.

Sorry I got the accounts wrong - from memory. Just looked it up
£3m in endowment funds. Have excess of £43m in total funds.
It's a bog standard private school. Not Eton.
I think could they possibly absorb - given they put the fees up 5% every year.

Well on some things we agree. Yes, we should be talking about what the state sector needs, you're absolutely right. And no, this vat rise is not going to be a magic wand to fix everything...it's going to take time. The building funds that were cancelled for example, and the physical decline of estates will take even more money to fix now and it's urgent.

But I don't think two tier education is a separate issue. Private schools impact state schools. There was one in ten in private school thirty years ago. Now it's one in five.

The professor in the article I shared says about moving more pupils back to the state sector....."Schools would be more representative mini-societies, and this could have knock-on effects for pupil achievement: less segregation between schools could help lessen the attainment gap between richer and poorer pupils."

Which is a fair point. It'll raise some money, but nothing like the amount needed. A one off wealth tax however would.

https://www.ft.com/content/36c35939-c06e-4758-8dcd-711d083f4192