Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 3

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Starting a third thread to discuss impact of VAT on private school fees, as the topic looks likely to run (and run). Though probably best to finish off the second thread before posting here, thx.

I am saying that wanting only a comprehensive system is 1 size fits all

Sorry this is poor etiquette to repeat myself and I can’t make clear bullet points work on here.. but CurlewKate sorry if this is wrong but I think you’re still saying that half full private schools or small private schools that don’t turn a big profit (like a successful business would do) are not really a big loss, closure just an inevitable consequence of any business not making a big profit and that parents are unwise to use those schools because of the risk that they would close.

I have been trying to say that actually the ‘half full’ mainstream private schools (small, quiet) or intentionally small schools (small classes, high teacher to pupil ratio) will be an ideal environment for some kids with SEND. And there’s not a state equivalent for those kids.

And some small niche activity or minority religious schools won’t ever be big schools because of their niche, but they’re still worth having in the ecosystem because they serve a minority of families in the community to which the school holds great value.

This VAT policy is endangering those small or ‘unpopular’ schools and in some cases it will be closing them down. An ecosystem is really important to maintain though- because the elephant in this room is that the state system does not provide for all children, regardless of the law that it should so.

I know this and so do lots of parents through directly experience of our kids being failed. If we had state funded equivalent alternatives we’d probably all be delighted. I would be!
I feel like this lack of admission of failure in the state sector to cater to all kids needs tackling first off. The pretence that all is well in state education, makes this debate much more entrenched because as private school parents we are paying fees we and our wider families can ill afford, while being told by the government there’s a free to use state system there waiting to help our kids- when it absolutely isn’t.

If the government admitted that not all kids are served by the state system then that would justify the existence of private schools (and tough shit for parents who can’t afford that). That admittance would be idealogically unacceptable to the government though so instead we’re being expected to sacrifice our entire finances or, our kids’ one chance at education. That’s why this feels so unfair.

Tiny violins and diamond shoes pale into insignificance compared to the horrendous analogies made on this thread before MN removed them. Where is all the outrage about those apart from that of the poster who defended posting them and those who backed them up?

I have 100s of examples of being sworn at on this site just for opposing the VAT policy. Being told I'm a "Tory twat" and that my child is an "entitled posh twat" etc.

@twistyizzyI hope you reported every one of those posts.

Of course

It's relevant in this regard that it was the widespread closure of grammar schools in the 70's that drove a lot of people into private schools in the first place. Prior to that wave of closures around 5% of children attended private schools, whereas after it, around 7% attended private schools and it's remained at that level ever since. It's therefore true to say that attempts to force all state schools to be one-size-its-all comprehensives drove the greatest ever growth in parental opt-out from the state system and private schooling.
A lesson that should be drawn from this is that if you create a system that doesn't actually meet kids' needs, many parents will do whatever it takes to opt out if it. A likely effect of the current changes is that they'll drive further thousands into home education.

The whole point of properly managed comprehensive education is that it is absolutely not “one size fits all” We should be working to ensure that all comprehensive schools are managed properly. The most egregious example of “one size fits all”- or more accurately “one size fits all except a tiny minority based on an unfair test at 10” is the grammar school system.

@CurlewKateas you seem pro VAT policy are you for it mostly for the perception of extra funding to state schools?

If it doesn’t raise much or as Labour’s policies seem to do end up disadvantaging the wrong groups - see recent welfare cuts - will you think it was a poor policy?

@EasternStandardIf it turns out not to raise any money-or if it does raise money but the money does not go to state schools, then yes, I will think it was a bad policy simply because of the time and energy that will have been wasted. However I have no problem with the idea of VAT on school fees per se.

You know the money isn't hypothecated? It isn't going to schools directly.

You also support an additional VAT tax on fees for private nurseries + dentists + healthcare? On any form of anything where there is a state alternative, however shit?

If it turns out not to raise any money-or if it does raise money but the money does not go to state schools

If the policy doesn’t make any money I doubt very much if the government will admit it.

Exactly, they are refusing to monitor or review it. We will never know!

If I could, I would ban or heavily regulate private tutoring.

@CurlewKate how would you ban it?
In the former East Germany, children used to be asked at school to describe what they watched on tv in the evening so the authorities could find out who had been watching western tv and punish them accordingly.
Presumably the parents got wise to this pretty quickly but then there was no shortage of friends, neighbours and even family members to denounce people for breaking the law in any way, so maybe that would be the way to clamp down on tutoring.

I realise that it is not hypothecated. But a more funding for education than expected will be a bit of a giveaway. I wouldn’t object to levying VAT on private health care. Nurseries? I haven’t really thought about that- but my initial response is that there is not enough state provision for parents to go elsewhere so no.

Regulating private tutoring is extremely champagne socialist and benefits those who already have educational privilege, at the expense of those who do not! Would you like to ban employing having a cleaner as well @CurlewKate? What else?
I don’t like the thought police! Let people make their own decisions especially with regard to their own children. How you educate your own children is up to the parents not the state! Especially not a state represented by a select few who went to Oxford in the 90s and hate Etonians.

More funding? They are cutting actual funding + not covering the full NI rise!
NEU up in arms.

Your argument about nurseries doesn't hold weight considering in some LAs there aren't sufficient state school places for kids leaving Indy. At least be consistent

Private tutoring can't actually be regulated. How do you even define it?

Is it:
Educated parents helping their own child?
Educated people helping their next-door neighbour's kid, their nephews and nieces?
Teachers helping their own child/grandchild?
Parents paying for online tutors in 'select country of choice'?

Are you allowed to tutor if the child is at danger of failing, but banned if they're getting an A grade in class?

Are you banned if their school is Ofsted Outstanding but fine if it's RI?

How about if school can't recruit a teacher for that subject and they've had cover teachers doing babysitting rather than teaching for a term? Is it okay then for parents to tutor, or do we just say sorry, not enough science teachers so the kids at St Custards need to ditch their dreams of STEM at A Level/University now.

Good luck with that!

@twistyizzythere are enough state school
places for kids leaving private schools. Unless you know differently?

I did say that the private tutoring discussion was for a different thread! I realise that regulating private tutoring would be difficult and not “catch” all but apart from anything else ensuring that tutors are qualified, insured and DBS checked. Many aren’t.

Yes and I've posted numerous links on this and other threads of councils saying 0 in year transfer places/Yr 10 + 11 +12 places.

LEAs have an obligation to provide a school place for all children of statutory school age.

There was one post I saw the other day where the local council was funding the independent school fees (no SEN involved) because they had no place available in that year group.

I suspect no parent is going to risk it, and will instead find some way to come up with the fees - even if it's continuing to pay for a couple of years after child has left - but I am not sure Councils would have a solution if Y11 students suddenly turned up needing places after Easter and 3 weeks before GCSEs. Or indeed Y10 students needing 4 terms at a state school.

It is positively evil that there was no phasing in for those in exam years. The government has basically told some parents to go into debt or risk their child's exam results and futures.