Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 4

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

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

But nobody has yet articulated a clear set of reasons for implementation that don't tick any of those boxes.

I would be really grateful if you could outline them for us in case I've missed them.

So far it seems to be:

A way of raising funds for state schools - except it almost definitely doesn't and certainly not enough to offset negative effects.

A way of encouraging more people to use state schools - on the whole people will if they have a really good one on the doorstep. They're not going to move private to sink... or at least only for the length of time it takes to appeal, move or find another way of getting a good school.

Otherwise I can't think of a reason to be in favour

Thank you voice of reason. You are of course correct, but it’s like talking to a flat earther…just ridiculous. I guess not engaging is the only way
forward.

So “flat earther” has now been added to spiteful, jealous, bigoted and of less than average intelligence……

I think it could replace the less than average intelligence part otherwise it’s getting a bit too long.

So, those "reasons" again

1. it will raise money for, and improve standards in, state schools

The documents submitted to court show that treasury officials estimate roughly 10% of pupils in private schools will switch from private to state. The loss of tax revenue, the cost of additional state places for over 50,000 kids etc. mean that the policy will likely raise near zero and could even result in a net cost to the taxpayer. See the independent reports by the Adam Smith Institute, EDSK and Baines-Cutler (unlike the IFS report that labour hung their hat on, the other three weren't written by the chum and former housemate of a labour minister). Labour MPs who told the truth (e.g. Emily Thornbury) and acknowledged that the policy could actually lead to larger class sizes in state schools were quickly slapped down and relegated to the backbenches.

2. It will simplify the tax system.

All EU countries and most western countries recognise that education, as a public good, should be tax free: it can't get much simpler. However, in their zeal to wield an axe on private schools, Labour have ensured the many small, low-fee schools are being driven out of business, while the largest, swankiest private schools can actually make a profit on this policy as they are now able to reclaim tax on capital expenditure, while the VAT cost is passed on in full to parents. Insofar as this policy might have been intended to target the most elite and expensive schools, it's an abject failure.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/12/eton-among-elite-private-schools-set-to-cash-in-on-windfall-from-new-vat-rules

3. It will make schools more socially inclusive/cohesive.

State schools are already divided: by selection on faith, academic ability and home postcode. Many comprehensives are more socially selective than grammars, and faith schools are three times more socially selective than others. If the government wished to make schools genuinely less selective / more socially inclusive it could have done so far more effectively by eliminating selection on faith and/or academic selection at 11+. The VAT policy is projected to cause around 50,000 kids to switch from private to state. There are 25,000 state schools in the UK. so on average a state school will receive 2 such pupils. This will have a negligible impact on social selection/cohesion. However, what this policy will do is raise private education out of reach for many who could otherwise have afforded it, and cause private schools to reduce their bursary offers, with the result that independent schools increasingly become the preserve of a wealthy elite. Therefore the policy is likely to make independent schools significantly less socially diverse, while having negligible impact on state schools - another own-goal.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/jan/11/some-comprehensive-schools-more-socially-selective-than-grammars
https://humanists.uk/2017/03/01/faith-schools-three-times-more-socially-selective-than-others-new-research-finds-again/

All EU countries and most western countries recognise that education, as a public good, should be tax free: it can't get much simpler.

You misunderstand. VAT is vastly complicated with many exemptions. New Zealand has simplified its system by applying GST at a lower rate and with very few exemptions.

We've asked SO many times over these threads for those supporting the implementation of VAT to give their valid and constructive reasons that this is a good policy. They haven't been able to, beyond 'idealogical'. They have resorted to saying 'not enough people care about it' and 'just because.. aren't I allowed my opinion?'. That's all well and good, but from the point of view of those who are going to be materially affected by it, I'm afraid those are just not good enough reasons for the hurt, upset, cost and damage this is causing so many people around the country.
I can, hand on heart, say that if the policy was going to make a considerable difference to state education then I would probably change my view, but it simply won't, so I am left with assuming spite and envy because there is simply nothing else.

Improved socio economic cohesion in state schools is a pretty obvious one.

@SabrinaThwaite do you mean by that that more children with well off parents will improve the schools?
If that’s the case, then according to mumsnet there are plenty of posters whose children improve socio economic cohesion at state school. ‘We could easily afford to send our three sets of twins and their four siblings to private school but we wouldn’t dream of it as we are decent, moral people.’
Would a few more really make a difference?

PP asked for reasons that didn’t involve spite, envy, jealousy or stupidity. I’ve provided a valid reason that has been raised by an academic working in education policy.

Whether you agree or not (and I’m guessing not by the tone of your post) is up to you.

@SabrinaThwaite please could you explain how it will improve socio economic cohesion at state school?

Maybe you could have a think about what happens when you remove a subset of the local community?

It’s you that has misunderstood. @Lebr1‘s point was that education should not be taxed as a matter of principle/public good, and that principle is very simple and indeed widely accepted the world over.

No one would dispute that the VAT system here is complicated, and I’m utterly baffled by any suggestion that adding VAT to school fees “simplifies” the VAT system.

It very obviously complicates things as a matter or principle (why not tax private nurseries? Or university fees? Or tutors?) and as a matter of practice (anyone dealing with or advising private schools on VAT have been tearing their hair out about the uncertainties of how it should be applied and processed).

Your NZ point makes no sense either. If it’s the case (I’ve no idea) that NZ decided to apply a lower rate of GST to pretty much everything and private education gets caught in that net - then that’s clearly very different from the ideologically targeted and spiteful approach by Labour here. In any event, NZ’s rate is not only lower but they give a $1000 rebate which is effectively a state subsidy reducing the impact of the GST.

Is the NZ approach what you’re advocating for - 15% VAT on virtually all goods and services and a partial rebate on VAT on school fees?

Deflecting @WithTheFairies question with another question rather suggests you don’t have an answer to it.
Which comes as zero surprise to many of us on here.

Maybe you could have a think about what happens when you remove a subset of the local community?

I don’t understand what that means. (I’m obviously one of those privately educated thickos).

@SabrinaThwaite you said that one of the reasons for supporting the policy was because you believe it will improve socio economic cohesion at state school. I’d be very grateful if you would explain to me how this works please. How would we measure the success of the policy against this goal?

I didn’t say whether I supported the policy or not.

I gave two reasons that have been suggested in response to the PP going on about stupidity, envy, jealousy and spite.

No one would dispute that the VAT system here is complicated, and I’m utterly baffled by any suggestion that adding VAT to school fees “simplifies” the VAT system.

Again, you’ve misunderstood.

The entire VAT system could be overhauled and simplified, but I doubt that any government has the appetite to do that, or that HMRC has the bandwidth to do it.

@SabrinaThwaite yes fair enough. But if people (you or others) are making the claim that socio economic cohesion at state school will be improved via this policy, then I would be very grateful to you (as the one who brought it up as a reason to support the policy) if you would explain how the policy will do so, and how we would measure the success of the policy against this goal.

If you take an average English comprehensive school of 1054 pupils in Y7-11.

Private pupils in England at Y7-Y11 is 6.4%
18.6% of them have SEN.

So you are talking about 67 students - 12 of whom are SEN.

So a grand total of 13 students out of 211 per year group.
That is less than 2 students per tutor group if each tutor group is 30 kids.

Research shows that schools with higher levels of poorer pupils have lower levels of attainment. Where that socio-economic segregation is lower, the attainment gap is lower.

The 6% in private schools are neither here nor there. They are not even a significant percentage relative to total population, internationally speaking. UK does not have more kids in private schools than other countries! Simple fact. Ergo, it really is not some sort of “major” problem to sort in the first place.

It is just that the Labour Party have BEEF with private education. And what they are doing is discrimination, because it is children and it is a minority.
We should all remember the 1944 Education Act and the spirit of it, and how Education for all matters. We have gone backwards since then, not least because of Labour policies.

The 6% was always far too small a percentage to make a difference to the 94%.
Just like the 5% left over in grammar schools. They don’t overall impact Education. It is just a lie. Blame the minority for any issues with the majority, rather than fix the majority, which is harder. So it is just a distraction.
The only way to improve Education for all is to improve funding for the 94% and fix the SEND crisis, and the parenting crisis amongst certain segments of society.
Instead they want to pretend private school kids are some magic money tree, or alternatively they will go and teach and up standards for the 94%. So that is what 6 kids per 100 in a comprehensive are going to raise standards for all?

None of this works. It is simple populist class warfare, and against children, so it is distasteful.
Trump has just backtracked, quite predictably so. Not too late to backtrack for Labour on some of their more mad and economically insane policies.

@SabrinaThwaite — since by definition the idea of the policy is to raise revenue from private school parents who are staying put, and forcing out only the less wealthy / bursary kids in independent schools whose parents can’t afford to pay the extra 20%, how does that improve social cohesion? Since by definition the wealthy are meant to stay put; and only the kids who are there on bursaries or because their parents scrimp and save have to leave?

They’re just joining the same kind of kids back in state, no? So: fewer relatively poorer kids attend independent schools, and the gulf between the wealthy and the state system widens, not closes.

How does that improve social cohesion?

(Well, I guess if you mean “all the poorer people should be together, and all the wealthy people should be together, and the wealthy shouldn’t have anyone less wealthy in their schools who can’t afford it” is what you mean by social cohesion.)

Or, in other words, there should be less mixing of rich and poor, so independent schools have even less income diversity. Is that the kind of social cohesion you mean?

Somehow I think the less wealthy PS children leaving the system won’t be on FSM.

@WithTheFairies The idea is that if you take away the choice of schools through taxation then everyone goes to the same happy school and the ex independent school kids magically improve everything. Nonsense of course, but it’s not the posters children forced to participate in the social engineering experiment and who needs education choice anyway. It’s the bravery of being willing for other people to pay taxes or other people’s children’s schools to be closed which really impresses me and warms my heart. 😍

It was implemented half way through an academic school year, precisely so people are temporarily trapped and do not leave immediately, to skew the figures to suggest that less will leave. The reality is that many more are now planning to go state at transition points, move into catchment and top up with tutoring. This will create even more of a two-tier system within the comprehensive system, the tutored and the great untutored. Although of course, it helps the Labour dogma if overall those already there end up tutoring even more and then the figures show “results”, when the truth is a quasi private education system, where parents are being forced by necessity to top up themselves. Schools should deliver for all, at school, primarily, without the need for expensive tutoring or help at home, due to teacher shortages.