Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 4

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

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

They really are a spiteful bunch.

54000 is significant because it constitutes about a 10% displacement from private to state.
In their analysis of the economics of the VAT policy the Adam Smith Institute calculated that the break-even point at which the the policy raises no net revenue at all is 10-15%. The treasury officials' own estimates are in that ballpark.

I think that’s technically known as “cutting off your nose to spite your face”.

Yet, as on these threads, people will rush to vote for it even if it is worse for their own kids in the state sector, just because they think it spites some other people who they think are getting something they’re not.

I thought happily sacrificing the SEND kids was a terrible scandal coming out of the court papers. But this is terrible too.

Surely that Treasury estimate means a major breach of good governance? The Chancellor’s own civil servants were saying that adding VAT to school fees it will likely raise nothing yet the PM and chancellor and education secretary all went out and lied and bigged up the promise of 6500 teachers (which nobody realises is half a teacher per school) and the cornflakes?

Also back then the money wasn’t ring fenced and I notice now the chancellor is being quoted that ‘every penny’ raised will be spent on schools. Meaning they must know they’ve no hope of raising money from this and absolutely won’t be buying in the 6500 teachers from any central funds.

So when are they going to come clean about these silly promises, which make them look terrible?

@AirwaterfireIt must be lovely to know with such certainty what other people are thinking.

Oh some posters on these threads have made clear that this is exactly their thinking - no mind-reading necessary.

I just cannot think of a single justifiable reason to vote for this policy.. no one, no one, is better off because of it. Anyone who originally blindly supported it must now be feeling rather red faced, because everything that anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence forecast would happen has come to pass! It was so obvious at the start, so I can only assume
that people did agree with it ‘just because’..

As far as the 6500 teachers go:
If 54000 switch from private to state, the first half of those teachers would be needed simply to preserve the current teacher:student ratio in state schools which is about 19:1. So half of the supposed "gain" is immediately wiped out by the other effects of the policy.
There's then the question of whether the VAT will actually result in any net revenue to the govt. The Adam Smith institute say it won't. So they're planning on spending fictional money they likely won't have. Even if - and this would be optimistic - it raises half as much as the govt claims, and there's enough revenue to hire around 3000 teachers, they'd only just about manage to preserve the current average class sizes and teacher-student ratios.
Then there's also the question of where those teachers will be coming from. There's already a teacher retention crisis. The staff probably won't be coming from independent schools because although some will be closing or reducing staff count, that'll be disproportionately prep schools, and the most acute shortages are in secondary STEM subjects. A Lancashire prep school closing is not much good to you if you're a state secondary principal in London and can't find a physics teacher.
So they're going to hire fictional teachers with fictional money which even in an optimistic scenario will just about preserve class sizes and teacher-student ratios at their current level.

There has been research on the negative effects of moving schools - it has a similar effect size on educational achievement to corporal punishment or depression (see attached figure from https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/). Needlessly inflicting that on 54,000 kids in the interests of political expediency is something no responsible government would do.

I believe that the reality is that most people didn't care that much either way as they didn't believe it affected them and that's just how many people think and vote. You have to remember that many voters don't have school age children. Also, of the ones that do, a lot would be in state schools and they would have viewed any impact as potentially positive (if they believed the figures) or having an indirect impact on them at most if some children were to leave private education. It was always just a marginal Labour policy and many would not have been voting with that particular policy in mind at all. At election time, it would have had some supporters of course but the majority were most likely ambivalent and I think there is far less spite and envy than many, on here at least, seem to think. You have to remember too that a small number of people can make a lot of noise and that is evidenced on here both with supporters and critics of the policy.

Lebr1 Thank you for this important point.
One of the compounding factors behind why parents of kids with SEND in private schools is that often our kids attend private schools as a last resort after a total breakdown of a placement at a state school (or of several state schools).

So the idea that many of us due to VAT plus all the other factors pushing up fees will be financially forced to uproot our kids yet again and return them into the same state system that failed them before, is really frightening, looking at the expected long term outcomes from a disrupted school career.
These experiences of having to leave a school because things are going terribly wrong can also cause depression in children, understandably. So there’s often that factor too.

That is probably a handful of people. I do not believe that is any way representative of society as a whole. Most people are decent and would not wish any harm to children.

I think this. My kids are older teens and will be unaffected (average state school with a sixth form that they will achieve grades for if they want to stay) and most people I know barely even know this is happening.
I've been following it all with interest (on Mumsnet) and I find the regular comments about lack of intelligence, etc. quite insulting. It's not really a way to move people around to an argument.
I have agreed with some of the other arguments against the VAT.

The majority of people don't actively care either way.

It's been clear on various threads that there is also disjointed thinking:

• if the rich and powerful and politicians have to send their children to state schools then that will improve state education.
• sharp elbowed parents with money will give their money to the school and that will benefit all the children.
• the only inequalities in education are rich toffs sending their kids to Eton and so stopping that is 'A Good Thing'

Very few realise just how different the best state schools are compared with even the average let alone the worst.

People don't realise that parents with resources will continue to put those resources into their own children, not into the school, thus creating issues between Set 1 where every child has a private tutor behind the scenes and Set 6 where the kids are all failing because schools can't recruit a physics teacher and kids are being set a worksheet by the latest cover 'baby sitter'.

The rich and powerful will just use private schools in other countries should they ever be banned here, or sigh at the extra 20% and carry on. But they are a tiny percentage of private school parents.

And no thought about knock on effects to the wider economy.

Set 6 where the kids are all failing because schools can't recruit a physics teacher and kids are being set a worksheet by the latest cover 'baby sitter'..

Yes, and yet a popular view on mn is that private schools employ unqualified teachers.

Having re-read the posts from yesterday, I think you have misunderstood me. When I said ‘LAs fund many other independent special schools’ and you replied ‘Barraclough IS LA funded’, I think you misinterpreted that as the LA doesn’t fund any placements at Barraclough but does other SS. That isn’t what I was saying. Officially, Barraclough (and many other independent SS) is an ‘other independent special school’ as you can see from the link to the government’s information I later posted about Barraclough Hall. I wasn’t saying the LA doesn’t fund placements there (although it isn’t run by the LA’s children’s services department and is still independent).

Im not sure where the posts regarding lack of intelligence are?
I think both you and Kendricks are right though, ambivalence is the word… now. Sadly, there were a great many who were actively pro this when Labour put it in their manifesto. There are still a few vocal supporters of course, but the most clued up have realised that the policy will do no good, and in most cases, will cause harm, so their vehement support has switched to ambivalence… I won’t hold my breath that that’d actually accept that they were wrong, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It’s too tempting not to.

Yes there’s not as many totally pro supporters.

I’m not sure Labour can totally rely on people not caring. Especially if they make cuts to state education, it’ll be a bit so that VAT was a sham then

Your post above: Anyone who originally blindly supported it must now be feeling rather red faced, because everything that anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence forecast would happen has come to pass!

There have been plenty of others as well, across the many threads.

Not wrong though is it?

This is exactly the kind of thing I mean.
Each comment like this pushes people away from your cause.

How do you know there were 'a great many' supporters? As I said, I don't think there ever were and people just felt they had bigger issues to think about like cost of living crisis, state of NHS etc. and it wasn't even on their radars. There have been posts about lack of intelligence but many more accusations of envy etc. However, there have been many nasty comments from the other side too. As I said though, I think these are just from a handful of posters on both sides and they are not representative of how the general public feels.

There was enough spelt out in things like the Adam Smith report that is was quite clear that this policy would never make any money and would have serious adverse effects on a significant number of children - especially vulnerable children.

Anyone who had read those and still thought is was a good plan has to be wilfully nasty, or be challenged in their ability to understand simple economics.

The court case has made it clear that things are actually even worse.

It's not 'my cause' either. I have a child who is fully state educated and leaves school in about 12 weeks time.

I just happen to actually care about education and my country and dislike seeing incompetent politicians with chips on their shoulders ruining lives and sectors cos 'ideology'.

If people are so sensitive that the slightest bit of perceived offence (when in reality there wasn’t any) makes them support such a short sighted, vitriolic and hugely flawed policy then, well, I give up.

Giving up sounds like a good plan.

Same