Thread 2: VAT on school Fees- High court challenge

[EHCPerhaps]

Following on from thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5160565-vat-on-school-fees-high-court-challenge

Background to legal challenge (not yet a case):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13824931/amp/Single-mother-autistic-child-launches-High-Court-challenge-Labours-private-schools-VAT-raid-claiming-violates-daughters-right-education.html

Sorry to begin a new thread, OP, but your thread filled up very quickly!

Coming back to a thread on this due to the audit on SEN today

£10.7bn a year is a huge amount but still there’s reliance on independent sector and councils can’t deal with EHCP demands at it is

Is this why Labour refuses to do an impact assessment?

Can people see the problem with the 20% yet

No, but I can see the problem of a two tier education system.

Thank you EasternStandard
I’ve posted my family’s situation in trying to educate our child with SEN several times in the course of this thread, and the failures of the state to provide a safety net. I’ve told that private school is a ‘luxury’ that I should be taxed on. I absolutely disagree. I’m a Labour voter and had hoped that the new government would take seriously the crisis in SEND education. But nothing has been said about that. Instead we have this.

This VAT policy isn’t even ring fencing money specifically to support SEND. It takes no account of the thousands of families saving the public purse by educating their kids privately, SEND or no SEND. Its just political posturing for likes. And it’s shocking how kids having to change schools is seen as some kind of inconsequential thing by government.

@EHCPerhaps I read a write up of new MPs' "maiden speeches" the other day and quite a few mentioned SEN, so hopefully the message is getting through at MP level at least.

Are you referring to the attainment gap betwen top and bottom quintile comprehensive schools?

The first has a progression rate to the best universities 25 times higher than the second. Or do you have some other sort of tier in mind?

North and South perhaps?

Just thinking aloud.

no love, I’m talking about a system where the richest send their children to private schools in a bid to extend the social privilege of their already massively privileged offspring and everyone else uses state provision.
That 2 tiers.

North and south of what? You know there are currently 4 separate countries that make up the UK and that most people don’t think about the U.K. as London/ SE and ‘the north’ ???

Just so we avoid confusion, is this the system where (40% of) the richest send their children to state schools with catchment area premiums large enough to cover the full cost of private secondary education, in a bid to extend the social privilege of their already massively privileged offspring (but at other people's expense)?

@Marchesman ,

‘Just so we avoid confusion, is this the system where (40% of) the richest send their children to state schools with catchment area premiums large enough to cover the full cost of private secondary education, in a bid to extend the social privilege of their already massively privileged offspring (but at other people's expense)?’

You are a bit obsessed with this.

Granted, this choice does get over the challenge of poor behaviour (somewhat), but schools in these areas still have to manage on the rather pathetic state school budget, still have classes of 30 and still can’t afford many TAs in these big classes. And, in the vast majority of cities, even in Chelsea, it will be a diverse mixture of those from the large houses and the neighbouring council flats.

And, if they are wealthy enough to buy the multimillion pound houses, they have paid more than enough taxes (including massive stamp duty) that they will be more than covering their children’s education.

Of course! Those rich state school parents will be paying VAT on the consumer goods they can buy with the money they're not spending on education (since their children's education is being paid for out of taxes). So that makes them much more pro-social than the private school parents spending the money on educating their children themselves. Oh hang on.. and now paying VAT on that as well. I'm sure you can make the maths work...

Hmmm, DD is in a class of 12 for Maths this year at her comprehensive, with a specialist teacher. (Target grade of an 8 so not remedial).

Class of 15 for Music (3 GCSE classes), and new Physic's teacher has a PhD in the subject.

Extra-curricular offer includes archery and horse riding - sadly fencing not on offer this year.

@Newbutoldfather do you think that people who pay twice for education don't also live in expensive houses and pay stamp duty and income tax?

I know the focus at the moment is on the few people who will seriously struggle, but honestly in all my years with children in private school (They never had a day of education at the taxpayers expense) I have to say that most parents were pretty much like us, net contributers, higher rate taxpayers and owners of expensive houses which we paid stamp duty on.

We also lived in a small town which had one of the top performing comprehensive in the North of England which we didn't use because we value education over results, but their results are nothing special anyway.

Brexit was dragged through the courts for years until BoJo got it through by the skin of his teeth. Still do not know how he pulled it off and that was with a referendum. I reckon this will be dragged through the courts for ages as well and will be a big embarrassment for Starmer &Co. Which I said from Day 1.

Meanwhile, Comprehensive Future is going all out against grammar schools again. I think one thing grammar schools, church schools and everyone else with any kind of selective admission should learn from this is that you do not stand back and just ignore the rhetoric. You have to fight for your schools.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg3y7291ro

Here we have it again. Race to the bottom. Eton offering one million a year, but they would rather not give some kids in that area a chance for the very top grades and a way into the very top unis. When we know for a fact that Northern working class boys who are bright are being let down.

"You are a bit obsessed with this."

From the person who was stalking my comments up-thread. Do you have any idea how risible that is?

I wonder what motivates people who imply that comprehensive schools are necessarily inferior to private schools.

Do they really have no idea? Are they lying in a bid to get rid of effectively the only competition that a great many comprehensives have (from the private sector)? Perhaps it is to distract from the hierarchical nature of state education.

Regardless, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that usually, and invariably from left wing journalists and academics, it is dishonest.

Spoken like a true true southerner.

I find it quite strange.

All this talk of advantage and two tier system.

There are lots of amazing private schools and lots of mediocre ones and some that really aren't great.

There are lots of amazing state schools and lots of mediocre ones and some that really aren't great.

No sector has an equal offering, and not all schools will be right for all children.

DH and I were both very academic, high achieving and needed to be in schools that focused on that.

DD is high IQ, SEN and not interested in academics. Neither DH's super-selective private school nor my super-selective grammar would have worked well for her.

We looked at some incredible private schools that were not just catering for the strings-of-9s, but ultimately felt the state comprehensive she goes to had the better offer for her personality and interests. Her comp has a better offer in every way than my grammar and I reckon she's had a nicer childhood there.

Not all parents are chasing the highest grades possible. The idea that you make 'contacts' through private school is laughable (those that look like they did already had those contacts through parents social circles).

Most parents are paying for small class sizes, or extra-curriculars on site that enables them to work longer hours, or live somewhere with a pretty bad state offering. Some are paying (or the government is) for specialist schools whether that's ballet, or music or SEN.

Ah, no. Not even close. Again- southern of what exactly? Aberdeen? Bangor, Bangor, Newcastle or Newcastle???

‘The idea that you make 'contacts' through private school is laughable’

Depends on the ‘contacts’ you want but if it’s the establishment then it very much IS what private school parents have been chasing for, well, for ever.
whether or not they’re still going to get that, below the really exclusive schools anymore. Remains to be seen.

What & where do you mean by the 'establishment'? I went to private school as did siblings and we made no 'contacts'. I went to uni with someone who was at Harrow and I'm sure he got a very good education, but ultimately you won't get on a competitive course without top grades regardless of your school, and for a profession like medicine your school 'contacts' will be of zero professional use. I find this whole argument about 'contacts' made at school really odd - adult friends or colleagues of your parents are going to be way more useful than another teen.

It’s a system that allows you to avoid the offspring of parents who can not raise children properly and the wide ranging drag down effects that has. It’s worth the money.

Right. So 94 % of parent are shit then? And the ones who pay for private schools are good parents?
This is the kind of snobbery that made us avoid private schooling like the plague.
Many private parents are outsourcing their kids care to strangers, I wouldn’t call that great parenting but I suppose if you have enough money institutionalising your children in boarding schools and the like isn’t consider neglect for some reason.

For goodness sake lay off the cooking sherry@Lookslikemeemaw , 'institutionalising' children in boarding schools? For the most part these are over 13's who want to spend time with their friends and play sport every hour they can. They are old enough to say if it doesn't suit them. The children you should worry about being institutionalised are tiny babies dumped in nursery for ten hours a day with often very young and inexperienced carers so their parents can get back to work. Those poor infants are too young to complain.
I think far more people inflict that particular form of neglect on children than send their teenagers to civilised boarding schools.