Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse”

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Whitehall ‘braced for private schools collapse’ due to fee rises

Worth reading the whole article, it’s not quite as alarmist as the headline suggests. But as you’d expect, gov sources are talking it all down while the ISC is ringing the alarm bell.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/e6465c9e-d462-48cb-a73e-74480059a1f3?shareToken=05bf599cd4a2376fe3ce83cdce607100

I’d be quite surprised if some of the schools near us don't fold tbh. There will definitely be a contraction in the sector, I just hope those that hold on can remain a viable concern.

"Grow up"? You sound sane.

It's a poll. Showing 22% of people disagree with VAT on private schools. It doesn't matter which newspaper is publishing the poll, they didn't commission or manipulate it.

And it's pretty relevant given how some posters here are thinking that it's the government who are out of touch with public opinion on this issue when in fact, shock horror, it's them.

The vast majority of people don’t understand the VAT policy. There have been posters who believe that private schools didn’t have to pay VAT on purchases and state schools did when actually it’s always been the opposite. State schools have been able to reclaim VAT but private schools couldn’t meaning that the same items have always been more expensive for private schools to purchase.

Then there are those that believe that the taxpayer has been subsidising private schools when actually private schools have been saving the taxpayer considerable sums.

There’s also huge confusion between charitable status and VAT and a complete lack of understanding that one has nothing to do with the other.

The general public have been gaslit by the Government regarding the non-existent tax break. It’s no wonder that so many people support the policy.

Yep. All true, thank you.

Even so - a lot of people would still support the policy. Just to ‘punish’ those wealthier than they are. Sad but true.

Envy in action. Sad reflection on human nature but what can we do.

Yes indeed - and there are some pretty obvious examples on the other current thread on this - snide comments about “diamond-encrusted shoes” and so on.

I have come to realise that the fact that this policy doesn’t touch the wealthy but actively harms comparatively less well off children on bursaries, small schools, SEN kids, and so on, is for these posters a feature, not a bug. They don’t actually care that Princess Charlotte or the kids of bankers and overseas oligarchs and the really wealthy schools are untouched. What they are really after is punishing little Jane down the road who is bright but struggles with dyslexia, and whose mum is a GP so they don’t go on holidays but send her to the local day private. That’s exactly who they want to be affected by the policy. It’s that lovely feeling of spite they’re getting from (as they see it) spiking the competition (though, it hasn’t actually occurred to them what happens to the resources in their own kids’ school if Jane and the rest of her class move there instead…)

That’s why the policy is so popular on here - it plays into all the worst instincts of voters despite the fact that it’s a poor policy that is disruptive, does little, and may even be drastically counterproductive. Just like Brexit, or the bedroom tax, or any number of similar populist policies that make no intellectual or financial sense.

Wow. I’d never thought of it this way at all. If that’s true it’s an even worse reflection of humans. 🙈

I thought that they just don’t discriminate between ‘rich people’. They’re all richer than they are whether on £100k a year PAYE or have a passive income of millions. So fck them!

Urgh.

You are both right. So no, they all aren’t subjected to Ofsted and the eye roll was unnecessary.

Half of all independent schoolsare inspected by Ofsted. The Independent Schools Inspectorate inspects schools that are members of the associations that form the Independent Schools Council.

https://www.gov.uk › private-scho...
Types of school: Private schools - GOV.UK

Sorry just out of curiosity, where would one buy these diamonds encrusted shoes so to speak? 😂

Even so - a lot of people would still support the policy. Just to ‘punish’ those wealthier than they are. Sad but true.

Yes, and there was a comment on another thread re children leaving private schools and going to state ‘This is the perfect chance to develop a bit of grit in kids who have pretty much had a easy life.’

Which I assume means they’ll have to face bullying for being ‘posh’. A bit grim to wish that on a child, however much the poster may disapprove of the child’s former school.

@Juliagreeneyes nobody is saying that little Jane has to leave private education though? That provision will still exist and it will be for her parent/s to determine whether or not they can (or want to) increase the amount of sacrifices they are making to send her there. Presumably if her attendance was so marginal financially that a 20% increase in cost would make it unviable then they must have considered this eventuality? There are any number of reasons other than government policy why private education may have become unaffordable during the period of her education. Increased fees, mortgage rates going through the roof, job losses, illness etc.

Is it unfair that an equivalent child with dyslexia hasn't been able to go to private school at all because his or her parents are £6k short a year due to stagnating salaries? Or because of childcare costs for younger siblings? We all just have to cut our cloth accordingly right, and it's a fact of life things become unaffordable for different people at different points?

Resilienceisimportant
okay. I take back the 🙄. It really was in response to the original post.

But you realise Jane’s parents still pay the taxes for state education as well, and if she moves back into state the available money per child gets smaller because it’s then divided between more children? Is that fairer for the kid who’s already in state, or not?

Your post shows exactly the incoherence that this policy is based on. Simultaneously it’s “well Jane’s parents should just fork out as they can afford it anyway/well Jane’s parents shouldn’t have sent her then if they couldn’t afford the VAT so they deserve to move to state/well it won’t matter if Jane moves into state anyway because that’s fairer”. Either you want the policy to raise money or you don’t. Either you think more money for state kids is better or you would rather they all have less because it’s “fairer”. Or it won’t make any difference anyway. Which is it? Would you still support the policy even if it loses the taxpayer money while leaving the really wealthy untouched?

Which is exactly why I suspect that the real reason why posters support this is something like “I don’t care if resources are less per child as long as they all have less because that’s somehow “fairer” (apart from the really wealthy who I don’t think about anyway)”

I think it is completely different. Those issues that you mention are not directly caused by the Government. As the Government is implementing this one, they need to act responsibly and have a reasonable implementation period. Introducing it with three months notice is completely irresponsible. The implementation period for the additional tax on vapes is almost two years!

The suggestion that parents haven’t planned or considered this policy properly is offensive. As a family, we have been baking this into our figures since 2019 when the Labour Party first mentioned it. However, what we didn’t do is allow for all of the other cost of living increases, no one foresaw that. I’m afraid that the this is the last straw for some families. Not me, as I have managed to get a new role with a substantial pay rise. But I am not so up my own backside that I believe that everyone can do that.

In Jane’s mums case I wouldn’t blame her if she binned the NHS and went to work in the private sector or left the country entirely. In fact, I have doctor friends who are doing just that.

I agree. It’s not about tackling major corporate non tax payers to add to the collective wealth. It’s about stirring up shit between other families pretty much the same as each other and getting families on the defensive wanting to feel vindicated about what they did for their kids or had to do. When it’s OK and healthy that different parents want to do things differently for their kids.

In the SEND kids side of the issue though it makes absolutely no sense. OK so… Let’s send all the SEND kids in private schools who have not cost the taxpayer anything (and who also have been subsidising their own unused places in state schools), back to state to claim what they can for their additional needs. Which will be numerous and evidenced because their parents will probably be able to afford private assessments now they aren’t paying school fees. Dividing and displacing what’s available to the SEND kids who have always been in state school.

But you realise Jane’s parents still pay the taxes for state education as well, and if she moves back into state the available money per child gets smaller because it’s then divided between more children? Is that fairer for the kid who’s already in state, or not?

Well it still remains to be seen how many children will actually move from private to state as a result of this policy. But either way, birth rates have dropped dramatically so there will be far fewer children coming through the system from now onwards. My children's primary school has gone from three to two form entry from reception this year, and this is also happening at schools across the city I live in. I'm sure this will have formed part of the government's planning for this policy.

Your post shows exactly the incoherence that this policy is based on. Simultaneously it’s “well Jane’s parents should just fork out as they can afford it anyway/well Jane’s parents shouldn’t have sent her then if they couldn’t afford the VAT so they deserve to move to state/well it won’t matter if Jane moves into state anyway because that’s fairer”. Either you want the policy to raise money or you don’t. Either you think more money for state kids is better or you would rather they all have less because it’s “fairer”. Or it won’t make any difference anyway. Which is it? Would you still support the policy even if it loses the taxpayer money while leaving the really wealthy untouched?

But it is such an arbitrary line that is being drawn here - based purely on what Jane's parents can/cannot afford. Plenty (I would hazard the majority) of her peers' parents will have no difficulty continuing to pay and some will decide (or have the decision thrust upon them) that they can't. Unfortunate for Jane, but policy decisions can't be made with an eye to the marginal cases like this.

For what it's worth I also think that the bog standard private schools will enjoy a bit of a bump in the next few years anyway, as inheritances from baby boomers start to flow down.

They haven’t done any planning. There is not capacity in state schools in every area to accommodate additional pupils. In some, like the area that I live in, there is a shortage of places to the extent that local state schools have put warnings on their websites for parents moving to the area - huge numbers of new houses have been built and continue to be built which is putting massive pressure on local services.

If the Government were actually doing any planing they would have, as a minimum, exempted all GCSE and A Level years.

@rubbishatballet
There is a bulge in the state secondary school population at the moment so it doesn't make sense to add extra children to it. Furthermore, each school does different GCSE and A-level specifications so children can't move easily between schools in Year 10-Year 13. There is also a shortage of secondary school teachers, which the quoted 6500 teachers won't deliver as this equates to only 0.2 teachers per school. Not to mention the fact that teachers are leaving state secondary schools in droves.
My son is in Year 11 at a private school, which doesn't have a sixth form. Almost everyone is his year will move to state school for sixth form.
As I don't think the change will raise much money (if any), the government should have implemented the change slowly-one school year at a time so parents could plan for the change or only primary school to start with. Then it would not have caused the huge problems that implementing it suddenly will do.
In my opinion, Labour should have sought to raise money for schools through taxing people on income not vat on private schools as this is based on the actual income people have not how they choose to spend their money. Some very rich people send their children to state school and some less well off people send their children to private school.

Everyone should spend their money as they like, raise their children as they wish, associate with whom they choose. No one should have to justify this in a free and democratic society.

The issue here is carving out an exception to the fact that education is considered a public good, not a form of consumption. Is this a slippery slope where university and piano lessons are next? Or is it a spiteful swipe at a minority of parents who make a choice that the current government doesn’t approve of?

I think Labour has animated strong feelings among 20-25% of the population that won’t dissipate for a long while. Those who approve of this policy are mostly indifferent, a few honourable posters on this thread aside. Why activate a significant minority against you, a minority who is likely to vote?

Poll today says that public support for vat charges has increased since it was first muted. I am guessing it is people like me who are sick of the hyperbole of some parents on social media over this issue.

Honestly, all of these threads have shown the same thing. The people who are against it can say why. They can point out the flaws. They can see the logical consequences for both state and private schools. They can delve into the minutae.

The people who are for it their arguments boil down to 'pay up you rich bastards' with a side order of 'nur nur a nur nur'.

@BugsyMaroon from where I am sitting the people against it are basically arguing we do not want to pay it and here are the fantasy things that will happen as a result. The people for it see that it is a fair proposal and realise the fantasy things will not happen.

The strength of feeling and anger of those who feel Labour are attacking them and their children - unfairly, out of spite, and without due care - is yet another thing Labour haven't bothered to think about / have underestimated.

I wonder whether the polls have measured strength of feeling? Specifically whether that strength of feeling is sufficient to change behaviour?

How many Labour voters feeling a momentary boost out of spite ideology do you think balance out the harm of a single doctor leaving the NHS?

Basic numbers of what percentage 'approve' only tell a very limited part of the story.

2 years to bring in the vaping tax.

3 months to bring in a tax - mid year - which will directly harm kids, when that harm could have been significantly mitigated by a longer lead time to get the exam years through and give SEN parents time to get the assessments they need.

Why?

Bastards.

The poll reported in the Guardian found:

14% strongly disagree with VAT on fees
7% slightly disagree
25% neither agree nor disagree
21% slightly agree
33% strongly agree with VAT on fees

The "fantasy" things will happen.

The negative effects of Brexit were described as "fantasy". They happened. The downward trend in the UK economy predicted by many is coming to pass. We are seeing the effects: the reduction in growth, affordability, lowering of living standards.

I'm just baffled that you are happy for yet another negative "fantasy" to come true... because it makes you happy that it does. Like the empty promise of "no more EU bastards stealing our jobs", you're now happy about "no more rich bastards having a decent education"... Even if it means you yourself, and your children still won't get a decent education regardless.

Your ire is directed at the wrong target. But by the time you figure it out, it will be too late.

"Shrug" emoji, I guess.

Thanks @SabrinaThwaite . Pity they don't have an extra option for 'disagree with so strongly that it will change my behaviour'.