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

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-exempts-america-soldiers-children-private-school-vat/

Gosh, that isn’t a great look.

I can't see that all these mini exemptions are going to make for a good look in court.

Low income and kid doing ballet or music at 4 schools - exempt
Boarding at state boarding schools where parents pay the boarding fees - exempt
US military children at UK private schools - exempt
SEN with EHCP and fees funded by state - exempt

Any others so far?

For US soldiers, isn’t it a side effect of a specific scheme which means they don't pay VAT on anything? I do see why that would be galling to UK armed forces who depend on private schools in order to serve. But I'm not sure it weakens the case for the policy.

Boarding at state boarding schools being exempt is so strange though. There's no reason for it - and it goes against the fundamental VAT principle that the state shouldn't distort the market by providing commercial services without VAT whilst imposing it on direct competitors.

It really betrays that it's a spiteful attack on non-state parents, and a deliberate attempt to reduce education options. I'm looking forward to hearing the challenges - hope that's in there.

I have two friends who have taught in private school. One sell their "brand" overseas. Their experience resonates with yours: it is all about money and marketing, the education is not better, the parents care more so the kids do better.

I was astonished to hear one of them is only qualified to teach primary but she is teaching in secondary because there is no regulation on the private sector. One of the schools she has taught in, to cut costs, they put kids if different age in the same class with high student to teacher ratio. The older kids got aggressive with much younger kids. I am not surprised. There are lots of ways for schools to drum up their performance - force students who are deemed "underperforming" to enter as private candidates, their results don't count; exclude kids instead of helping them if the school finds them underperforming, which is mentally damaging for the kids knowing that they can be kicked out any time.

The academy near by in law has sold some of the school grounds for profit and keep hiring unqualified teachers to keep cost low. They feed kids junk food and fizzy drinks. I am glad the schools will be under LA control again. The number of schools controlled by academy chain that have sold land for profit is insanely high. It shouldn't be allowed.

To sell any publicly funded land, an academy must first get the Secretary of State to agree that it is no longer required for the school. The Secretary of State can then direct the academy to:

• sell the land to the LA at a price set by the Secretary of State (which would usually mean that the LA pays nothing), or
• buy the land at the current market price, or
• sell the land to another academy at a price set by the Secretary of State, or
• keep the land

The idea that academies are selling off publicly funded land for huge profits is one of the myths put around by opponents of academies. If it was true, Labour would have been shouting from the rooftops about it while they were in opposition.

We know from research carried out internationally that the best performing school systems give schools the freedoms that, in the UK, go with academy status. The academy programme has seen the UK going up the international league tables. It has had broad support from all parties. The current Secretary of State seems to want to destroy that success and return to a system of LA-control which fails our children.

Ah, Schrodinger's schools again.

Simultaneously so amazing that they should be shut down because it's unfair to give such a big advantage over state kids...

... and so shit that they should be shut down to protect the poor naive private parents.

You know a private school and you think it's shit? Great. Don't send your kids there.

But fuck off trying to damage our kids schools which we value.

Well said!!

Was just about to write this. 👏

I know your response wasn’t directly to me, but there’s no Schrödinger’s schools here- they’re all so shit that I don’t care if they’re shut down. I don’t think anyone is gaining any advantage other than the name of ‘our schools which we value’. Let people keep paying for brand names if they so desire. But put VAT on it just like a Louis Vuitton bag, because that’s all it is- branding on a basic item readily available elsewhere.

Well the parents using them disagree with you. Maybe you don’t know everything.

Let's put VAT on all Ultra Processed Food as well. It's all complete shite, which I wouldn't touch, and the only reason people aren't cooking decent stuff from scratch is because they're caught up in brand names.

It's branded chemicals, not food - so let's get rid of that VAT exemption.

You forget that many of us have used state and private sectors side by side, so able to compare directly. If you think private schools are all shit, then where does that place the state schools many of us have fled from?

So what if people struggle with a 20% hike in their food bills? Normal food is readily available everywhere. They can make do with real food like the rest of us. Sure UPF manufacturers could find some savings to limit the increase anyway.

Agreed?

I have one DC in a state grammar that is top ten in the performance league tables and one DC in a private school. I can tell you that the private school does have a number of advantages over the state school despite the state school being one of the highest performing in the country. It’s absolute nonsense that all private schools are shit. In fact, I have a number of friends who have removed their DC from our failing catchment comp and transferred them to various private schools. They have all found the private schools far better.

And your handbag analogy is total crap. All handbags attract VAT, whether they are Louis Vuitton or Primark.

@TempleHill

I was astonished to hear one of them is only qualified to teach primary but she is teaching in secondary because there is no regulation on the private sector.

The vast majority of state schools are also able to recruit non qualified teachers. In addition to this, the state system has an increasing problem with "qualified" teachers teaching subjects which they have no experience of. A PE or geography teacher may be "qualified" but may not be the best person to be teaching maths for example.

In reality, most private school teachers are not only qualified but they are also subject specialists. Every teacher my children have had has been qualified. Every teacher at secondary has been a subject specialist, with subject specific qualifications and often with real life experience of their subject outside teaching.

I cannot understand why people keep going on about sub-standard teaching in the private sector. Parents would be quick to move if this were true. If some people think that private schools are no better, fine. No one is forcing anyone to use them.

@mynamechangemyrules

Let people keep paying for brand names if they so desire. But put VAT on it just like a Louis Vuitton bag, because that’s all it is- branding on a basic item readily available elsewhere.

Your comment makes no sense. Even if private school is solely about branding (it isn't; there are often huge differences), VAT has nothing to do with branding.

Harrods caviar and Mr Kipling cakes are free from VAT. In your example, the 2 bags are subject to the same rate of VAT.

I teach in a successful private school. It's excellent on every level. It just is. There's no comparison to an average state school (which I attended). The staff, the facilities, the sport, the music, all the extracurricular stuff are exceptionally good. People pay £££ for a reason.

This also just makes no sense. If the schools really are so bad, why not just be glad that those parents are still choosing to pay for their children's education themselves (out of taxed income) rather than the state paying for it?

They're already saving every UK taxpayer money. If they move to state school, your taxes go up. This policy will almost certainly cost the state (and so all taxpayers) more than it raises.

Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, just out of spite?

If they are all shit then what's the problem? Let us throw our money away while parents who use state can smugly sit back and laugh at us, but leave us alone to waste our money.

@twistyizzy @strawberrybubblegum

Twisty Izzy I agree with you completely on your last point. Very happy to leave you all to it, have been leaving you all to it for many of the decades I’ve worked across all sectors of education.

It’s always been a cost/ benefit choice for everyone, it remains a cost/ benefit choice for everyone, albeit a slightly higher one. But then it’s a disproportionately higher cost compared to income to send children to private school than it was 20 years ago anyway.

Everyone is free to make their own decision, most parents everywhere I’ve worked have the sincere wish to support their children through whichever educational setting they choose, which is what makes the real difference in most cases. Everywhere I’ve worked has also been full of lovely children who will be working hard and learning lots about life wherever they are sent to school.

The relevant distinction is between all and some. Some private schools are shit. All private schools are not. Some are great. All are not. Anecdotes can't distinguish between some and all.

Private schools have the essentially the same freedoms regarding hiring staff as other schools which are not under local authority control (academies and free schools). Individually, the teachers are not necessarily any better (how could they be, when they've mostly come through the same training programmes?). Where private schools have an advantage is in resourcing: favourable teacher to student ratios, less disruption, ability to attract subject specialists in areas where there are shortages; also in some cases academic selection on entry.

Value for money is a different issue. Many grammar schools deliver similar academic provision on a fraction of the budget, which shows how much money is spent on extracurricular programmes and facilities that many parents would rather do without. What irks many of us is we simply wanted a no-frills education that actually meets our children's needs. The state failed to provide it. We have already been forced to pay far too much for it by going private. Having failed us once, the state then adds insult to injury by taxing what it should have provided for free.

But if I buy a handbag and pay VAT I'm not also expected to buy a second one for other people to use...
Education is not taxed in most of the developed world, unlike luxury consumer goods. UK will be the outlier, so it can't be the obvious course of action. Indeed, without Brexit, it wouldn't be possible now.

As far as I am aware, New Zealand is the only country that taxes private education like this. However, in their case it is done in the interests of keeping their tax code simple and is partly balanced by a subsidy of about £1,000 for each secondary school student attending an independent school.

As has been noted up thread, Greece tried a similar policy a few years ago. It was a disaster which was rapidly reversed, but Greece is still suffering long-term negative impacts.

The reason these types of far left policies are a bad idea is because they signal to investors that you cannot trust the UK Government to promote excellence and growth. It sends an anti investment message just like the non dom stuff and people do not forget these things. As a result, less people invest or stay in the UK and it is exactly the opposite of what we need. The long term implications are therefore lack of trust and what they actually promote is the negative spiral we already find ourselves in. I mean how desperate does a Government need to be to tax the education of children, including some children with SEND. It looks desperate.