Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 5

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Starting a continuation thread in anticipation of the fourth one filling up…

www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5301690-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-4?page=39

"no one is saying it’s wrong to choose these schools (even when people “pretend” to be Catholic, or move house to improve their chances of entry) because you’ll be getting an unfair advantage. The same can be said for state Grammar Schools."

@WishingYouEnough do you really believe that noone says it is wrong to choose a grammar school for your DC? As a parent of three DC who all went to super selective grammar schools, I have to disagree with you. There are many who hate grammars and plenty say it is wrong to choose them.

My understanding is the VAT is payable by the parent on the full fees, not just the part they are paying.

So parents who are receiving almost full fees through MDS are having to suddenly find £8k for the VAT when they have been assessed as only able to pay a couple of thousand or less via the government scheme.

They can't try to argue they thought this through or planned it properly, can they?

@KendricksGin

My mistake; I wasn’t clear enough. (I appreciate your comment). I should have said that I don’t hear those supporting the VAT imposition saying that grammars and Catholic schools are “elitetist” and unfair. (I appreciate some people do have strong views for and against both. We don’t have grammars in our area, so the postcode lottery applies).

My personal view is there should be tolerance and acceptance of horses for courses; different schools for different families and children’s needs. I know that might sound like I’m a sitting-on-the-fence liberal, and there’s more nuance to the arguments on all sides, but targeting independent schools based on “the privilege of the wealthy” is not a balanced argument, either with regards to the VAT issue or the unkind taunting of school children from these schools on their journeys to and from school.

I think partly what is most galling is that Starmer is using his privilege in educating his kids in such a champagne socialist way, yet not acknowledging this while pulling up the ladder for kids who can't attend those free super-selectives, either through location or failing exams at 10 years old (usually because they can't afford tutors).

There are lots of posters on MN who both support VAT and hate grammars. There used to be whole threads about how elitist they are and how they should be abolished. VAT is more the zeitgeist at the moment. Usually now it starts off with on how sensible VAT on fees is but then often segues into grammar school hatred/abolition.

@twistyizzy with you having a break I don’t know if you missed my pp, but I am still interested where the information about Barraclough Hall School being a s41 school came from if you don’t mind/can remember. I support parents of DC with SEN and it helps to know where myths are coming from - I am not saying you used it but a big one at the minute is poor AI (it even makes up case law and professional names! A perfect example of why people need to take care when using it).

Hi it came from a list gathered on new schools opening and s41 ones. Not AI generated. I have noted that it isn't a S41 and ammended the list but is there a reason why in the admissions section it only refers to LA + EHCP approvals? No mention of self funding?

@twistyizzy thank you. I wasn’t suggesting you used AI. I was just giving it as an example of one particularly problematic source of myths at the moment.

Funding routes and section 41 approved or not are different things. Some wholly independent schools accept self funders, some don’t. Same for section 41 independent schools. And some independent (both wholly and s41) schools don’t mention self funding on their website but do accept them if approached - probably because of the significant cost involved with many independent SS.

It’s just good old fashioned spite, envy and bigotry. Children are an easy target.

Yes, thanks for asking.

https://afis.org.uk/

It’s free to sign up.

I work part time and my kids go to private school. I recognise my privilege.

I also recognise that parents working part time do so because childcare and flexible working is prohibitive in a system designed for the wealthy but hey don’t let that get in the way of a good story. Keep them down hey.

@thismummydrinksgin if your family is contributing your fair share for running the UK (tax on a £40k salary each, or equivalent) then I have no problem/opinion on how you spend your family surplus - whether that's working less, education for your kids, cars, holidays, or the most amazing collection of vintage guitars.

If your family isn't contributing your fair share and makes choices which further reduce your contribution, then I do. Especially if you then make a moral judgement on how I'm spending my surplus - and try to take even more of it for yourself.

If you choose to use your family surplus to give to people who have so little regard for you that they actively support a government policy which will cost the state money for no benefit to anyone... because they actively want to take your own children down a peg or two - well, that's your choice. I guess.

It's not a choice I will make. So I will tax plan accordingly.

There are solutions to the way the cost of childcare is concentrated in such a short part of our working lives, and non-resident parents get to opt out. No one has tried very hard to solve that problem. Maybe that would be a better thing for Labour to work on, rather than deliberately destroying the private education sector in order to level down education. And redistribute, redistribute, redistribute, regardless of fairness or consequences.

childcare and flexible working is prohibitive in a system designed for the wealthy

Incidentally, how exactly is the childcare system more beneficial to the wealthy?

• Families on Universal Credit get up to 85% of the cost of childcare paid for if both parents are working. That's up to £12,400 per year for one child, or £21,200 for 2 children.

• All families get £1350 per year child benefit for their first child and £900 per year for each subsequent child unless either partner earns more than £60k.

• families get £2000 off their tax bill for each child to recognise that you need childcare to allow you to work unless either partner earns over £100k

• families get 15-30 hours of free childcare for their 2-4 year olds which is ( 30 hours gives an annual saving of £10,000) unless either partner earns over £100k (in which case they additionally have to pay the higher nursery rates which are used to subsidise those free hours - since the government doesn't fund them properly out of taxation)

So a family with one earner on £101k per year (£69k net) and 2 preschool kids would get £35,450 less in subsidy for their children from the government than a couple who both do part time NMW jobs.

The £101k salary earner has total net pay of £69k. And no government subsidy.

Full time NMW is £22.2k. Just £2.7k tax and NI each leaves them £19.5k tax. So 2 full time NMW workers + that £35,450 subsidy gives almost £74.5k . Ie £5.5k more than the person handing over £31k in tax.

Even a single parent on NMW is only £14k less well off net than the £101k single parent, once the taxes and subsidies are counted.

a childcare system designed for the wealthy?!?

Don't make me laugh.

And our government wonders why the UK has such low productivity: much lower than either European countries (where benefits are tied to how much you've contributed previously - to give a genuine safety net for everyone whilst not distorting the incentive to work) or the US 🤔

Thank you very much for voicing the concerns and setting this up!

You can’t claim tax-free childcare and the childcare element of UC at the same time. It is one of the other.

Amidst all the VAT madness, vitriol and frustration, it’s so nice to feel appreciated. Thank you.
I’m so grateful to other organisations, like the Education not Taxation team who have done an incredible job. Like us, they are volunteers, trying to create a strong, united voice for all families of independent schools.

In addition to the urgency of the VAT imposition, we felt there is a broader and longer term need to safeguard independent education, counteract the misinformation and misperceptions and fight back collaboratively. We are fed up of being made to look like over-privileged villains with the assumptions that we are all super-wealthy with superiority complexes. Our contributions to the economy and society are significant and AFIS.org.uk will offer benefits to say THANK YOU to our members as well as create strength in our numbers.

I’ve been so heartened to see the intelligent, reasoned arguments presented on this thread by those in support of independent education and against the unjust, irrational VAT imposition on schools. I’m proud to part of that movement.

That's true. So in order to get more accurate numbers (since the rules are quite complicated) I put the numbers into www.entitledto.co.uk

I've put 2 NMW adults with 2 preschoolers in full time nursery (£1895 each per month - pretty normal for the SE) and renting a 2-bed home in outer SW London (£344/week allowed for a 2-bed in that area), and they get £703 in benefits per week. Add the 2xNMW jobs at £19.5k net, and their net annual income is £75,500. Hmm...

If we have a single NMW worker, UC goes up to £863 per week. So net annual income is £64,376.

The single £101,000k worker pays £32k of tax, to end up with a net salary of £69k. And gets zilch from the government, because they 'earn so much'.

That's unbelievably only £4.5k more net income per year than the NMW single parent with the same children and costs. Despite earning £80k more - almost 5 times as much.

But that's without counting the student debt (which you almost certainly need to get a job at that level). £6.5k per year in student debt repayments from the high earner. Nothing from the NMW earner.

So actually, if both have been to university, a single parent of 2 preschoolers is better off on NMW than on £101k per year.

"childcare and flexible working is prohibitive in a system designed for the wealthy"

How, exactly? What a fucking joke.

Op I'm interested that you say that you can't find robust research data that public school parents are not super wealthy

What a joke. You did not look for that data. It is obvious that public school families will be average of wealthy and super wealthy

You win the award for making things up, in a bid to sound sciency. Well done you.

@Marchhairs whilst the distribution in private schools will be wealthier than in state schools, at every single income level up to top 1%, more send their kids to state school than private. Even in the top 1%, only 50% of children go to private school. So numerically, there is a larger number of wealthy parents in state schools than in private.

Of course those state school parents additionally get their wealth significantly boosted by the £8k per year government subsidy they get for each child's education. Which the private school parents are paying entirely themselves out of taxed income. (And now with an extra 20% on top... even on the 8k per year every other child is being given by the government)

Here's a breakdown of what proportion of kids go to private school at each income level.

Although @wishingyouenough, I think you're wrong to beg people not to bully your private school kids 'because they're just like everyone else'.

By setting yourself apart from 'the truly posh', you're saying that it's OK to treat them like shit for having more money. "Just don't pick on me. I'm not like that"

All us parents and our children are being tainted with the "posh and privileged" brush; the kids even get taunted by strangers on their way to and from school

Being taunted by strangers on the way to school is completely unacceptable regardless of how "posh" or how "privileged" the children are.

And it's not a taint.

Contributing financially to society is commendable. It's bloody perverse to have to beg people not to bully you for it.

I can’t see how I was begging people not to bully private school children (mine or anyone else’s). I said it’s not right for “ALL parents and children…..” to be treated in this way. Maybe you read this as suggesting it was ok to taint some people with that brush, but not me?

And I don’t believe I have set myself apart from what you refer to as the “truly posh” or suggested that it’s ok to treat anyone “like shit” for having more money. I just know from personal experience (and appreciate the data and analysis you have presented) that the families at most private schools come from diverse socio-economic backgrounds.

I just believe there is a need to address the misinformation, misperceptions and negative biases that are ultimately divisive and destructive and can lead to bullying.

I find it sad that accusations of being “bloody perverse” are hurled out (in my view erroneously) and hinder what ought to be rational, respectful debate. Is that really helping the cause?

I guess that’s the heat you get if you choose to stand in this kitchen.

My children are very posh. They were not bullied for it in their state schools.