@Marchesman ,
‘Given that the IFS published two reports that contradict each other, what do you think they would say?’
I have no idea, but how about you ask rather than accusing them of intellectual dishonesty before even bothering?
‘Green advocated lowering "parental demand for private schooling" by raising the tax burden in order to achieve greater "educational equality". It is inconceivable that Sibieta's aspiration of a movement of 0.2-0.5% of the school population in any direction would accomplish that. Sibieta cites Green's research 8 times but makes no reference to Green's paper for the IFS, despite that it is clearly relevant.’
Sibieta’s report makes no aspiration, you are putting words into his mouth. This report is purely about the economic impact of VAT on school fees. He cites research which he sees as relevant. The Green paper that you keep citing was part of a set of papers on inequality, and nothing to do with fiscal impact.
‘Fabrication is not a "big claim", it means invent, or make up. I was mostly referring to the fact that Sibieta misuses or shirks evidence to create a particular impression. It doesn't take him long, his first citation is to "a significant public debate" (in fact a polemic targeted at independent schools that starts as it means to go on with a picture of a golden ticket). He then cites "Private schooling and labour market outcomes" as evidence for how "pupils attending private schools benefit from significant advantages." However, that paper not once refers to the fact that children are genetically related to their parents.’
Fabricating evidence means that he has made his data up. This is a claim of intellectual dishonesty which, again, if you genuinely believe it to be true, should be challenged, so that he has a chance to rebut it. Regardless of his or your conclusion about the correct answer, there is a significant public debate around private schooling. You only need to read these threads to realise that.
I agree re your last point, in that private school pupils have, on average a 10 point IQ advantage over the national average. However, there is still a massive concentration of private school pupils in certain very well paid professions (e.g finance, the judiciary) as opposed to professions where pure brainpower is more important (quantitative research for instance).
‘But he also relies on multiple ridiculous assumptions (assertions in the absence of evidence - i.e. fabricated) in his paper. E.g. "the demand for private schooling is likely to be inelastic – i.e. the number attending private schools is not that responsive to the price." The price has never before increased by increments of one fifth!’
Well, here, you are clearly talking absolute rot. Private schooling over several decades has, in real terms (post inflation) more than doubled and the percentage of pupils accessing private schools has, in fact, increased if anything. Also, the 20% increase you mention isn’t real, it is 14-15%. For someone so critical of the way others present their evidence, you really out to be more careful. What you probably meant to say was it is an unprecedented one-off increase, but whether that is relevant long term, who knows.
‘It may bear scrutiny in the circles that educationalists travel in, but by any other standard it is dire.’
Your posts may bear (quick) scrutiny on a social media forum, but if you want to challenge a researcher’s work, you should challenge it with detail and give him a chance to rebut your criticisms, rather than trying to disguise ad hominem attacks with a pseudo-intellectual critique.