Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 4

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuing the discussion about the impact of VAT on independent schools…

Yes, that is absolutely the crux of it. Cynical beyond belief, disproportionate, and amoral. And the "ending tax breaks" language that they've used is pure mendacity.

It's still not clear whether this policy is supported in order to raise £££ moolah bonanza or to curtail the privileged purchase of education.

If the latter, then every private school closure would be a good thing and (one would think) triumphantly reported, even where there are other contributing factors and the policy is merely an aggravating factor.

If the former, it makes sense that one wouldn't want people to change their behaviour in departing purchased education, and it would be very important to cast doubt upon any reports of such. Unfortunately, there is plenty of precedent for people changing their behaviour in response to financial incentives/disincentives.

They want the rich elites to stay in the UK and send their kids to top private schools - the ones for whom an extra 20% is mildly irritating.

They want the SEN parents who can to keep forking out whatever it takes to keep the kids off the state books and are pretending not to see them.

Everyone else they want in state schools as they probably believe that that will boost results in the short term and they can claim credit.

What they don't give a shit about are any kids in state who aren't aiming at Russell Group and Oxbridge (if they actually know any as you can be sure none of their kids are in failing comps).

Specifically, what is your point?

I was thinking exactly the same thing about your post.

So why are you announcing it on here today when presumably you are in no position to give any more information on the specifics?

@KendricksGinwhat are you arguing for? I mean what is it you are after, to have the VAT policy or not?

Do you think it’s a good thing to do

My point is that education tax will cause schools to close. Now, after weeks of posting please …please…what is your point?

The support seems to be along the lines of ‘it won’t be that bad’. Saying that, one post I saw supported the policy to stop people buying schools to avoid paying inheritance tax. She was quite worked up about it.

I've said many times over that I do not support the VAT policy. My point is that hyperbole weakens the arguments against the policy. There are a number of schools which were already destined to fail and although VAT probably precipitated this, the outcome would have been the same. Thus school closures need to be considered alongside the circumstances of the closure. Look at the one that was announced on here last week. It had nothing to do with VAT when the backstory eventually came out.

@FairMindedMaiden and other things will cause some schools to close. It is important to understand what is VAT and what is not if you are going to attempt to quantify the impact.

“What they don't give a shit about are any kids in state who aren't aiming at Russell Group and Oxbridge (if they actually know any as you can be sure none of their kids are in failing comps).”

Oh, they definitely don’t give a shit about the kids that are aiming for RG and Oxbridge- just look at the advanced STEM and Latin programmes they cancelled! It’s kinda hard to work out who exactly they do care about…

It’s not ‘hyperbole’ to measure the impact on schools of a 20% tax.

If the outcome is closures at a higher rate and cuts in state funding then it’s a policy that has damaged a sector and failed at bringing gains to state education.

What's the point of that then?

You're right!

I'm not entirely sure I know anymore.

They want more arts in schools... and are now current music and dance programmes.

More stem grads - and cut advanced STEM.

Latin I understand them going after as they probably never benefited from a classical education and think it's just for toffs.

They certainly do not give a damn about kids with any kind of SEN, that much is very, very clear.

I think perhaps some of their donors might have rather dim children who need less competition for places at elite private schools? Could that be it?

cutting... not current music and dance.

But you are not accurately measuring the impact of VAT unless you consider the specifics of the closure and ascertain what was VAT and what was other factors. I am astonished that this is so difficult for some to understand.

I’m astonished that some find it hard to get rates of closure have increased.

And that they can’t follow the thread to an extra 20% tax. Which would damage any sector.

It’s bizarre.

It's pretty obvious that rates of closure have increased since VAT. It is also pretty obvious that in some cases VAT may have precipitated closures which would have happened anyway. It is important to split these cases out if the number of closures is to be used as ammunition against VAT policy. It is beyond belief that some cannot understand this basic concept.

It’s beyond belief posters keep pushing the they would have closed anyway line.

The increase is the impact. It would be the same on any sector.

Name a sector that wouldn’t see damage from 20% tax in terms of closures and job losses. Which one would be unharmed?

And which GDST school was it? Google doesn't help.

I think it might have been clearer if you’d mentioned this basic concept in one of your 40 odd other posts, it’s been like pulling teeth getting it out of you. Still, we got there in the end. 😀

You are missing the point again. Nobody is saying they ALL would have closed anyway but there are some that would have. It is not as simple as to say the increase in closures to date is the impact and project that forward. It has to be looked at over a much longer timeframe for accuracy if you are looking at overall closure rates. There could be a bunching up front and closures will tail off or something different.

No-one said there is no damage. You seem to have misinterpreted that as well.

Getting there. You know there’s damage. And cuts to state funding. What’s the point of the policy exactly?

Analysing them individually doesn’t really help - any organisation will have weaknesses that in a crisis that could become compounding contributors towards a failure, but equally could be overcome with time and financial breathing room. The true impact is only seen in the macro analysis and looking at trends across a decade and isolating specific aspects through time and data. Those of us not willing to wait a decade to have iron clad proof this is a harmful policy must turn to trend lines. In order to make those trend lines we need individual data points. Thus, we count every single school closure without categorising it as vat related, because that is irrelevant.

If we are seeing 8x increase in school closures then that means 85-90% of closures have been influenced by vat. 10-15% wou,d have absolutely closed anyways that year, and maybe another 10-15% would have closed the following year(hastened demise theory), but that still means the majority of closures are vat related.

I would have thought it perfectly straightforward to be understood a lot earlier. Still at least we got there in the end, as you say.