VAT on school fees (you have to read this!)

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

Government’s private schools VAT raid ‘could cost taxpayer £1.8bn’

Parents who are forced out of sector are likely to work less or even quit jobs, according to think tank research.

Adam Smith Institute.

this will become norm very soon.
Unintended consequences.

Also, it has a postive effect on sixth forms because many can't offer a wide range of subjects because not enough uptake. Many don't offer physics for example, so those state children who would have done physics A level miss out.

This argument makes no sense. A school isn't prevented from offering physics A level because it has too few pupils. It's prevented from offering it because the number of pupils entitles it to £x funding through the government's funding calculator, which isn't enough to employ the physics teacher.

But the government can change that! Without adding the extra pupils!

Say a school currently gets £4million for 1000 students, which isn't enough to pay for a physics teacher

Which is better:
a) The school gets 20 new students, who used to be educated privately. The government now gives the school £4,080,000. That's enough to pay for a physics teacher. However, the school now has to fit those kids into existing classes, giving each child just a bit less time than they had before.

b) The 20 children remain in private school, educated entirely at their parents' expense. The government changes its funding and gives the school £4,080,000. The school can get the new physics teacher, but doesn't have to fit those 20 extra kids into existing classes and teacher-time

You can't have it both ways:

Either the private school kids will be fitted into existing state schools at minimal extra cost. In which case the existing resources will be split out more sparingly than they would have been without them.

Or the government pays extra funding to educate the extra children. The schools does get the extra resources like the extra physics teacher.... But the government could easily have given that funding anyway, and the resources (like teacher time) would have been shared out between fewer children.

I do find it fascinating that private school parents just assume that their children are automatically cleverer than state school kids. Of course they will be cleverer and/or better supported than many-but the assumption that they will hoover up all the grammar school places is perhaps a little risky? Moving into a 75:25 selective area is a particularly dangerous gamble.

That's assuming the private school pupils pass the 11+.

When I worked in a grammar school 40% of the students went to a private primary. The siblings that failed the 11+ went to a private secondary, those that passed went to the state grammar.

So a large proportion of the private secondary pupils forced out by the changes wouldn't be taking up grammar school places, but heading to secondary modern.

I'm trying not to be biased but we obviously all have our own circumstanceswhich means we can't be entirely objective. I'm a Labour supporter and I'm state educated myself. I intend to move my children back to state education at 11 and in the meantime I'll pay the VAT. But I absolutely do not agree with this policy for a number of reasons, not least because I just think the behavioural changes will have a negative impact. I loved being able to go to a state grammar which wasn't full of people who could otherwise afford private. I just think this is the brexit bus all over again.

Anecdotal - my DC non-selective prep did first CATS testing in Year 4. Year group average was 121. National average was 100.

I don't believe that top PS kids are more clever than top state, however, there are very few kids in mainstream PS who are on the left side of CATS curve hence the average is higher.
I agree with you that selective area is a risky strategy, but parents who wanted PS are engaged enough to try to make it success when PS option is taken from them.

If you look at A-levels you can see a huge gap between grammars/PS and the rest, whilst grammar and PS results are very similar.

The 'behavioural changes'???

I went to a state comprehensive, DD has gone to a state comprehensive.

We have both been educated in an environment where doing your best is/was valued. And if you have the interest and ability then oxbridge/RG university was encouraged and supported, but if you weren't academic then your other talents and abilities were encouraged.

Behavioural issues were/are tackled proactively

@Baital fair enough if you're talking racial diversity you've experienced, I can only speak about our local state comps which are neither racially nor socio-economically diverse. My DC are much more grounded and aware of their place in the wider world having attended independent school than if they were at the local comp with solely white middle class friends who only live within a couple of miles. This is something that bugs me about attitudes to independent schools by people who've often no experience of them, they are socio-economically diverse. Yes there are wealthy families of course but many parents are ordinary workers, some are in the military, shop owners, I know one who's a taxi driver. The flashiest independent school parents I've met are people who grew up on council estates, if you want to talk about socio-economic diversity.

The behavioural changes of the parents I.e. whether they work, what hours they work, where they live, what they speed their money on etc.

Not the behavioural changes of the children.

“I do find it fascinating that private school parents just assume that their children are automatically cleverer than state school kids. Of course they will be cleverer and/or better supported than many-but the assumption that they will hoover up all the grammar school places is perhaps a little risky? Moving into a 75:25 selective area is a particularly dangerous gamble.”

Teachers from Reception onwards will tell a parent if their child is very intelligent and exceeding? We were always told in state. If I had any doubts about grammar suitability, I would have paid an educational psychologist to assess DC.
I assume those who could afford private school could afford to do that? I thought most private preps test kids yearly anyway with CAT type tests? When my DS was mathematically gifted state primary let him do some testing - not sure how it was funded, but it was. I am in London though and we always seem to have charities and all sorts of extra funds. Like funds for talented divers and Lacrosse and free primary school meals for all.

'Non-selective' PS don't accommodate pupils who struggle academically (looked into it for DD!).

So you are not comparing like for like.

DD gas an EHCP and was never going to get average - let alone above average- exam results. No private school would take her.

😂I am fairly middle class, but know hardly anyone who could afford PS.

It really isn't 'normal' to be able to afford PS.

And even when I could afford it for a year because DD was struggling, I couldn't find a PS school who would accept her, because she was struggling ( and presumably because it wasn't worth it because I could only afford a year)

Gosh an actual taxi driver.

Whatever next.

I know!!!!

A taxi driver!!!!

Full marks for diversity, with a token taxi driver 😂😂😂

Then you were looking at the wrong schools. I know many parents who cannot 'afford' private school either, their DC are there on bursaries. Many schools (not all, some are snooty) welcome bursary applications and it's not just for the academically selective. One friend with 2 DC on bursaries is a state primary school teacher with a DH who works in a factory (not management on a big salary, just an ordinary machinist) they live in an ordinary house with a mortgage so no big equity to draw on and no inheritances or GP contributions before you ask. Another is a florist, her DH is a mechanic, and yet another is in the police, none of these people are posh or rich at all, they're all 'normal'.

and there it is, when it comes down to it it doesn't matter what the parents or the DC socio-economic background is, it doesn't suit your narrative so without a proper argument you just bitch. I'm sorry, are taxi drivers supposed to spend their disposable income on something less aspirational? Pies, pints and prozzies suit your idea of what a taxi driver spends their money on does it? You laugh but you give yourselves away.

love and kisses

a shop worker who put 2 DC through private school.

It is pretty snooty to make fun of parents who may have to be Uber drivers in the evenings to pay for fee increases on private schooling. Especially if they are ethnic minorities and from certain cultures who value education above all else.

I'm clearly not mocking taxi drivers, I'm mocking the tone of the post which seemed to be parading them like some novelty guest.

These are the jobs from DD's class: hairdresser, farmers, beautician, builder, lawyer, civil servant, nurse, teachers, doctor, broker, nanny, business owner, railway worker, teaching assistant and secretary. So let's see which profession you wish to mock next?! The point is - posters keep saying how everyone is rich and middle class but there's actually a mix of backgrounds.

Poor.

Thats a low blow.

Yes, I so agree this is the Brexit bus all over again. A nice shiny £ that we've all been promised, which will never materialise as the tax was too high to start with, so this income generator will end up not generating much at all. Which will instead cause a whole lot of unintended consequences for the state sector. Exactly the same as the Brexit bus that actually ended up costing us (and our children) a whole lot more.

Meanwhile... there's no money coming for education from anywhere else for state school kids (including my own) except from this single policy. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul. I voted labour too, because I support other policies in their manifesto, but I think they got this one wrong - it's too ideological for me. They are using it as a way to hide severe underinvestment in the sector, which they are continuing after the Tory shit show. Black hole be damned - there is no greater investment in the country's future than its children.

Private school fees and private school outcomes are much better than state because.... That's how much it fucking costs to educate children properly! That's why people use it in the first place, because state schools are dire, including the one my child goes to. The only way to improve a substandard product is to put more money in it from a far better, more secure tax source, in far far greater volume than some VAT from a diminishing source.

Hypocrisy, maybe?

That depends on the reasons they gave for sending their children to state schools. Yes, it's hypocrisy, if they claimed to be opposed to private schools on ideological grounds about inequality, etc. No, it's not hypocrisy, if they stated up front that they found state grammars to be acceptable but the state non-selectives they can actually access to be unacceptable.

Actually it's both.

I'm actually ideologically opposed to private and grammar schools on the grounds of inequality.

But I don't judge any parent (including me) for choosing them.

Grammar school is massively beneficial to my child and his education. I acknowledge and accept that this is at the expense of children in secondary moderns.

It's an unfair system.

However my responsibility is to my child and I have no intention of making a political gesture at their expense.

If that makes me a hypocrite, I'm happy to wear that crown.

Sorry ignore me, I was referring to someone else calling me a hypocrite for something else.

Most friends I know who could afford private, did so if they didn't get into the grammar.

So much so that the local private schools make you pay a hefty deposit before the 11+ results come out to secure the place.

The lost deposits alone could probably cover the VAT.