I’ll be paying my 20 percent

[Froginpot]

I’ll be changing my car to a much more economical one and paying the 20 percent vat on private school fees when it comes to pass.

The reality is in general the trend in the UK has been for lower and lower academic attainment and the UK educational system ( including a respectable segment of the university system ) is now sadly mediocre at best. And this is directly going to have a significant influence on the long term trajectory of post brexit Britain.

Sadly we are so mired in short term politicking and yes the politics of envy and entitlement that we seem not to notice this ominous decline.
A British education 80 years ago and A British education today are two very different concepts.
There have been some progressive improvements primarily around inclusion and pastoral care but the actual quality of academic progress..we have been left behind.

The recent riots were a very stark demonstration of how our educational systems are failing our children especially in world where misinformation and lies travel around the globe in minutes.

The number of children with Autism and other neurodiverse conditions is increasing rapidly (not limited to the UK) and the funding required to properly support these children is going to be astronomical. Let’s not even contemplate the burgeoning mental health crisis in our society and the its implications.

A truly progressive government would be looking to improve the education of all children (our future) anyway they can and would be looking to encourage and incentivise a greater uptake of children in the private sector and grammar school system as well as create more education streams such that children regardless of their abilities will receive an education that adds value to their lives and in so doing adds value to Team GB.

I wonder how it is not hypocritical that they are happy for the private hospital sector to undertake so many NHS operations to reduce waiting lists yet think it is somehow not okay to look at an education sector that is doing better and not look to collaborate similarly?

It is shamefully okay to levy a tax on the education of a sector of British citizens while actively importing academics, doctors, nurses, radiologists, radiographers, engineers etc from abroad?
If these privately educated kids finally enter the workforce, one wonders if they will work in vacuums benefitting only themselves and their loaded parents or might they work in jobs that are also useful to society..teachers, social workers, doctors,dentists, academics, estate agents, actors on corrie and all the other jobs in between?

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/vat-private-school-fees-damage-nhs-pro-bono-lawyers-work-edinburgh-4818066

Just read this article and I wonder if all the unintended consequences of this policy have even been properly considered?

For those who choose to keep their children in the independent sector, it is naive to assume that all these people have tons of money sitting in their accounts ( some no doubt will but that’s no different to the general population) but as they have their individual reasons for their choice of education, I wonder how many of us will indirectly end up contributing to their 20% ?

According to the optimistic IFS figures, this tax would probably equate to 0.4 extra teachers per school if fully realised so I think I’ll much rather drive an old car and give my kids the education that I choose and the rest of my wider GB family the 20 percent. We will need all that and much more..of that much I am certain .

Again, with regard to the "wealth" statistics, it is far too superficial. Quite apart from anything else, the disparity in house prices across the country makes a huge difference to disposable income. If you are in London for example, being in the top 1% earnings in the country doesn't automatically mean that you can afford private school for several children if you have to have a huge mortgage. Also, as I said before I know many families where grandparents/trust funds foot the education bill. This muddies the waters too. One of my friends works in antiquarian books (for interest) and earns very little. Her husband does only charitable legal work. The wider family wealth is huge but most will be transferred down the line for tax reasons. They live in a Pimlico town house and all four of their DC are at boarding school. How would they fit into your statistics?

Feel free to study the methodology and figure it out for yourself https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10119433/1/Income%20housing%20wealth%20and%20private%20school%20access%20in%20Britain.pdf

the reality is that at any income or wealth decile there will be just as many in state as there are private. Private schools cater to a wide range of economic situations that range from incredibly wealthy to very working class - at our school I know of several families where grandparents contribute, but neither gp nor parents are ‘wealthy’ - you have multiple households pooling together to send a single child to private school, usually because the child was not doing well in state. I also know loads of very wealthy (top 0.1%) families sending their children to state because they live in good catchments, have nannies to ferry children to all after school activities, and on a certain level don’t worry about their children having to fend for themselves as will pass on wealth regardless of academic achievement.

You didn't answer my question?

What question? The question of how your very specific situation fits in the statistics? I think my suggestion is you can study the attached literature, which includes a detailed methodology for determining income inclusive of both income and wealth and figure it out for yourself.

I have read it and my point is that the wealth of the example I gave would not be picked up in their methodology and as such it is flawed. I was actually waiting for you to acknowledge that but looks like that's not going to happen.

You haven’t shared enough details to ascertain where said family would fit in the statistics, but the point of statistics isn’t to reflect every individual circumstance perfectly - there will be outliers in any data set, and I dare say volunteer antiquarian book dealer on trust fund in Pimlico is a bit of an outlier. The presence of outliers doesn’t negate the broader analysis unless your argument is that all of the lower income families are secret trust fund millionaires? It also doesn’t change the fact that over half of wealthy families are in state education?

How do you cope with car parks? Too traumatic? Possibly have to wear blinkers to avoid seeing a new car or you helpfully place “approved” stickers on all the suitably modest cars?
By the way.. you would need to write something intelligent to irritate me..please try again

And once again, it depends on how you determine wealth and this study seems heavily weighted on income. As I've said several times these are two very different things. You also seem to have ignored my point that a top 1% earner may not be that wealthy in terms of disposable income if you factor in London and SE house prices if they are heavily mortgaged. Those 'wealthy' families may not be choosing state schools but their wider financial circumstances may be choosing state schools for them. It is therefore somewhat misleading to be banding around the label 'wealthy' by looking at 'wealth' in absolute terms rather than within context. That's all.

Well, you can't have it both ways.

The biggest problem is kids in state schools that just aren't performing. It's fine if you can afford to live in catchment for a good state school, but what about all the kids who don't get a good school? The thing about having a choice of school is a joke, where I live, there is only one choice & the school requires improvement, don't put that school down as a choice on your application form & you get sent to a school miles away that is completely failing where they send all the kids that schools don't want. Staff turnover is massive, classes are being taught by teachers who don't teach the subject they are expected to or lessons are covered by cover supervisors. Ds had 5 maths teachers & 3 English teachers in his GCSE years, 2 of the maths teachers were PE teachers, any good teachers up & leave to go to better schools. Behaviour is awful, there have been drugs, knives, gang fights, one boy who was excluded murdered while delivering drugs, the kids who just want to go to school to learn have no chance, there was at least 1 incident a day, the Head wouldn't control the level of bullying, theft & fighting in the school, ds had his bag slashed by a boy with a Stanley knife & school's attitude was what do you expect us to do? No concerns about the fact there was a knife in school. We need the government to shake up schools, get rid of academies, bring schools back under council control & make every school a good school so the kids at the bottom have the same opportunities as the kids at the top.

Thanks for sharing your experience. It sounds demoralising. We don’t have it as difficult where we live even though there are issues.
One of my friends completely moved counties for the this same issue especially with having two boys and wanting them to grow up in a safer space but not everyone can do this.

Regarding Eton, so they are going to claim back millions in VAT on capital expenditure, there won’t be 100% of parents paying VAT to compensate because of the huge amounts of prepayments and then the next Tory Government will scrap the VAT on private schools as it will become obvious that it decimates the sector and destroys small private schools. Then we as taxpayers will lose out. And who is going to take the blame? I really hope those in charge who failed to carry out the full impact assessment will be held to account!
Or do we just write it off as another Rwanda scheme - basically, an entertainment policy for spiteful politicians at our expense?

And that's why you think all indy parents are wealthy or have wealthy parents, because you live in London. Which also has some of best state schools in the country. No wonder you can't understand why some of us aren't in that position. And you accuse me of being in a bubble?!
Come to the NE where for yet another consecutive year we are bottom of the table for GCSE results and wages are nowhere near London level. Come and meet grandparents who were miners and tell me that they can afford to pay the fees for their grandkids.

Sorry, but at the top 1% (even if just paye income) private vs state is very much a choice, regardless of where in the country you live. People might prioritise a bigger house or a better catchment over school fees or have decided to have 4 kids, but ps was very much an option. There are a great deal of people who do NOT have options, but that’s not anyone in this group.

your argument is weird - top 1% earners are not really wealthy enough to have a choice if they aren’t using ps, and anyone in a lower income bracket using ps is really a secret millionaire. Sounds like some real mental gymnastics to uphold a world view where only truly wealthy people use ps.

A British education 80 years ago and A British education today are two very different concepts.

I don't know about this tbh. The state school I went to in the 80s was shit and is now so much better. Our local state school is also excellent. My daughter out performed every private school child in our social circle at gcse.

I query the accuracy of the statement that our academic attained trend is lower and lower - do you have a source for it?

And finally I could afford private schools for but haven't done so because I fundamentally disagree with their existence. It's nothing to do with envy.

...because we know that grammar schools aren't exactly filled with children from the most economically deprived families.

I repeatedly read on these threads that having money doesn't affect whether kids will get into grammar (research from the Sutton Trust doesn't support that) and these former PS kids won't take up grammar places. So which is it?

Labour can't even make up their mind about the quality of state education. Yesterday Starmer said it was brilliant yet Phillipson keeps saying it isn't, only she can save it and that we are facing an attendance crisis. So which is it? They can't have it both ways.

The fact that you have a good local state school for your daughter is lovely, but even Ofsted said our local state school was not safe, changed the head teacher, fired the board of governors and wound up the entire trust a year later.

Some of us chose an independent school (small, rural, modest) through concern, not because we want to throw away thousands a year. It is nothing like Eton, no flash facilities, astroturf, embossed paper, weird uniforms, but it is at least safe.

I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who are very wealhy and are using state school. The wealthiest people I know have put 4 DC through state school.

OP like you, we're in Kent and have excellent grammar schools so we're lucky that we'll be able to use them. But really more people ought to be less of a burden to the state, not more.

As someone said on another thread - the biggest gap is within state education. This will not fix that, in fact it will make it worse as PS parents will just move to better catchments and/or apply to grammar school.

Anybody who is earning should be alarmed at all the 'if you can afford to pay something you should' because that is what we are paying our taxes for. No way am I paying twice for education, health, services.

Don’t forget everyone.

The more former PS students who join SS,
the better - as this will reduce privilege and help equalise educational outcomes. The implication being that PS parents have sharper elbows etc.

This is the mantra according to many of the pro-VAT brigade anyway….

Now that tutoring is so rife (multi billion dollar industry and growing and already a threat to private schools anyway), there will be no changes in equality whatsoever, The powers to be are behind the curve, as usual.

Valid.

That, and Labours inability to recruit the promised 6,500 new state school teachers, should prove interesting.

Yes - and they absolutely won't be taking up places at some of the more sought after state schools.

Re "A truly progressive government would be looking to improve the education of all children"

I think that they are indeed doing this in my area in state schools.

The problem is that parents are too busy working or too reliant on the school system alone to deliver a well balanced and educated child, and aren't putting in any graft at all themselves for their child.

This means that educators alone have to bring the less capable students up to speed. At the same time as educating the others. So in order for that to happen without any additional investment and staff, the standards have to drop. Leaving capable students bored and unfulfilling their potential.

So the capable students are paying the price for the not so capable ones in order that the lowest ones can have a reasonable eduction.