Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 2

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Starting a second thread as the first one is still very busy, albeit it's veered off in a few directions...

Original article

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

I don’t think that’s the correct article link

Thanks, perhaps the original share token ran out. Here’s another one:

www.thetimes.com/article/e6465c9e-d462-48cb-a73e-74480059a1f3?shareToken=76476bd9b47058e761eaed63699f81d8

And here’s a non paywalled version

archive.ph/xcSkO

Usual crab bucket mentality we see in the UK. In other countries those sending their kids to private school get a tax rebate, here it is seen as something warranting punishment.

It has come across as a punishment, to be honest. Partly because of that tweet the Education Secretary sent out - the message is that “our children” doesn’t include those in private schools. That’s something that people still think of when they mention her - and it’s going to be difficult to get across any other message.

The thinking that using as many public services as possible, retiring early and not being ambitious for your DC, is not going to grow the economy. It’s managing this country for decline.
How will Labour foster ambition and drive and growth with a growth mindset if they inflict damaging policies on the DC of ambitious people? Instead of thanking them for saving the taxpayer money and contributing to the economy. It’s all upside down.

The opposite is also true when private school parents and alumni close ranks and recruit in their own image.

Totally agree

Yes. As someone who uses those private schools I find it ridiculous. Schools like the one we use won’t be affected (old public school) and all we are doing is closing ranks. Plus, if I pay as much as I do now for my three then those who want bursaries can sod off.

I think the hope is that education, state education, should foster growth. And that the children of people without money should also get the chance to grow.

Pitching it as only unambitious drones go to state school is likely to inspire a churlish 'fuck you then' attitude.

It would be nice to work out how to make all education fit for purpose. Especially for those children who have challenging lives in other ways.

This had really been changing - CV blind interviews, a conscious effort to market to graduate recruits at a wide range of universities including non-Russell Group at the City Law firm where I work.

I wonder if this will last now that private school parents are being targeted as a cash cow to milk, to pay for the education of others including millionaires who use state schools?

The thinking that using as many public services as possible, retiring early and not being ambitious for your DC, is not going to grow the economy. It’s managing this country for decline.
How will Labour foster ambition and drive and growth with a growth mindset if they inflict damaging policies on the DC of ambitious people? Instead of thanking them for saving the taxpayer money and contributing to the economy. It’s all upside down.

What nonsense! By this logic if you can no longer afford private school you aren’t ambitious enough.

My wife and I are both doctors and can't afford the increase. Guess we're just not ambitious enough.

I wonder if this will last now that private school parents are being targeted as a cash cow to milk, to pay for the education of others including millionaires who use state schools?

Surely millionaires with dc in state schools have paid plenty of tax?

My wife and I are both doctors and can't afford the increase. Guess we're just not ambitious enough.

Perhaps you need to take in some ironing?

I really would like education to be great for all children. I would love to see a plan to get this done - including a cost estimate and allocated money to make this happen. I find it shameful that not more of the overall budget is allocated to this.

i don’t think the VAT will increase funding anywhere near what it needs to be unfortunately. And I am cautious about the tinkering with the curriculum.

”I think the hope is that education, state education, should foster growth. And that the children of people without money should also get the chance to grow.”

@MrsTerryPratchett - is that not already the case in state education? The children of most ambitious and involved parents (regardless of money) do well in most forms of education.
So why target one sector in this way? It makes no sense, given that even in the best case scenario regarding VAT raised, the overall take will represent peanuts in the greater scheme of the overall education budget?
So it’s just downside risk for SEND DC in private education and annoying a whole swathe of net contributors into the system? I really am failing to see the upside in this policy.

As have the majority of those in the private sector. The difference is that those using the private sector aren’t using taxpayer resources for the education of their children. As an example, assume 2 families pay exactly the same amount of tax. One uses state, the other private. One of those families is costing the taxpayer £0. The other is costing the taxpayer thousands a year. There is no logic to taxing the family who aren’t using state resources.

Gloat away. Next will be university fees attracting VAT costs and private healthcare. The race to the bottom continues.

All ambitious parents do for their DC what they can within their means. That can be private education, moving into a good catchment, just sitting and supporting them with homework, reading and talking to them etc., helping them find good revision sites- it does not matter what form it takes.

All parents investing time and money in their DC’s education is always a social good and an investment in the next generation of taxpayer. Therefore, civilised Western democracies don’t tax education. It’s the equivalent of R&D in certain businesses. It would limit future growth opportunities and here what this political party has proposed, is lacking in proportionality. The best case scenario of raised revenue does not counterbalance the adverse consequences to the lives of children directly and negatively affected.

As have the majority of those in the private sector. Of course but seemingly quite a few in the private sector aren’t millionaires hence threads like this?

The difference is that those using the private sector aren’t using taxpayer resources for the education of their children.

But how is millionaire with dc in state school getting subsidised by someone who earns less & pays less tax using private school because they have to pay VAT? And plenty of people in the private sector have other dc in state &/or used state for part of their DCs education & themselves may have been educated by the state system.

Now I don’t agree that the VAT will make much difference to state schools & I particularly see the issues around SEN but some of the arguments used are nonsense.

Brilliant news. I’m sorry a few kids will have disruption but the collapse of the private school system will benefit the 93% of children who don’t attend. Bravo!

@NiftyTraybake well clearly I was being facetious but it wasn’t me who mentioned ambitious parents

How will Labour foster ambition and drive and growth with a growth mindset if they inflict damaging policies on the DC of ambitious people?

and there you have it. The superior mindset in action. That most people want to stamp out. Money does not equal ambition. @Araminta1003

Jaimenotjamie · Today 22:05
Brilliant news. I’m sorry a few kids will have disruption but the collapse of the private school system will benefit the 93% of children who don’t attend. Bravo

How will it benefit 93% of children?