Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 4

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

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

FYI this is Barraclough which is SEN, classed as independent but paid for by LA (can clearly see owned by Children's Services) at cost of 65K per year

A 1,000 pupil mainstream independent school closing and a 150 pupil faith/SEN school opening isn't the net zero impact that some simplistic views suggest

It isn't like for like schools opening + closing. So it's comparing apples to tomatoes.

@EasternStandardUnfortunately I can’t c&p. But your post of 17.56 applies.

It is Polaris Children’s Services Ltd. That isn’t the same being owned by the LA’s Children’s Services department. But, yes, LAs fund many other independent special schools (the government records them separately to other independent schools).

There’s nothing in my post that’s a ‘falsehood ’

Why would it be?

No or said a MS school closing and a SS opening was the same. No-one even compared them.

a) Are any of the schools closing 1000 pupil schools?
b) I don’t think anyone suggested it was a net zero impact, did they? I certainly didn’t and it was me that raised the point…

Oh @EasternStandardyou KEEP saying that people are denying that the levying of VAT will have any impact on private schools! That is the falsehood.

Yes I’ve seen posts along those lines on here.

If you acknowledge damage and therefore reacted to my post then that’s more your issue, but also even for a supporter of the policy it’s interesting you accept there’s damage.

Why would anyone want to do that to a sector, would you want it for your sector?

You may not have but others previously have

Barraclough IS LA funded. Section 41 school

It may be funded via LAs placing pupils there (with the school’s agreement since it is wholly independent and not a section 41 independent). That doesn’t make it any less of an independent school.

Neither does it make it run by the LA’s children’s services. Lots of companies running independent special schools have children’s services in their name. For example, Aspris Children's Services Ltd (a well known group in the SEN world operating independent special schools) and Birchwood Children's Services Ltd. That doesn’t mean they are part of LA Children’s Services departments even when LAs fund the placements. And some independent schools ran by proprietors with children’s services in their name still accept self funders.

So this is not true then?

It is not a section 41 independent school. You can see the list of section 41 schools here.

Also to show it is not a section 41 independent school, you can see on the government’s school information page it says ‘Not approved’ next to the ‘Section 41 approved’ field.

OK if that's the case then I accept it but I have got the following details:

Barraclough Hall School is an independent special school approved under Section 41 of the Children and Families Act

Where have you got that from?

And my point still stands. The gov are panicking about tariffs and managed to tax one of their own sectors to damage it.

And section 41 independent schools are still independent schools. They are just a type that isn’t wholly independent and can be named in EHCPs even if they object - although some threaten to withdraw (and a couple have gone through with it) from the scheme if LAs try to place someone they really don’t want. Some still accept self funders, too.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14568377/Labour-ignored-plea-delay-VAT-private-school-1bn.html?ico=comment-anchor

contains the following:

"The Treasury memo also reveals officials thought 54,000 pupils would be displaced into the state sector UK-wide, most within two years – higher than other Government estimates of 35,000.

In addition, they admitted there would be a ‘small number of local authority areas’ where ‘increased demand for state school places will outstrip existing supply’, especially in sixth forms.

The memo also confirms the Government predicted as early as July that 100 extra private schools would close due to the tax."

Spoke to a friend this morning whose (state educated) DC has predicted grades of 8s for GCSE. They have only made the reserve list for 2 state 6th forms in London as they are so oversubscribed this year they can give conditional offers to those predicted higher.

Anyone wanting a state 6th form in London this year needs to have their sleeves rolled up and phone charged at end of August from the sound of it.

Really sorry to hear that @ohcrumbswherenow. I hope your friend's DC gets a place she's happy with.

Fortunately they have applied to quite a few, and their current school has a 6th form which would be first choice and grades will be enough.

Friend was just shocked that predictions of all 8s only made reserve lists this year (child isn't targeting the most popular subject options either).

I'd suggest that will be the case for the next 3 years at least. Anecdotally dd is in y9 and school friends in Set 1 are all aiming to take spots at super selectives at 6th form. A fair few aiming at boys schools that take girls for 6th form, so I do wonder if those schools may be more girl heavy if they go on grades for entry spots. I was quite sad when I heard how they'd all been discussing this already with parents who knew they'd not be able to afford fees to 18.

I don’t know how anyone supporting this policy is able to argue with a straight face that it will be just be super great for loads of private sector kids to move into state because of the middle-class sharp elbows, etc. etc. Those kids are going to suck up all the competitive places, funding and opportunities which then won’t go to the less well-off kids who might have got them instead.

But yet again it’s Schrödinger’s VAT rise, in which apparently it will on the one hand raise loads of money because no kids at all will move to state; but on the other hand loads will move and somehow this will magically make the state system better even if the policy loses the taxpayer money.