Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 6

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuation of previous threads to discuss VAT on independent school fees.

Please may you link to previous threads? I’d be interested to read. More than expected going to the wall around us. It’s the smaller ones, in less affluent areas that are more often than not catering for those who have tried and struggled to have their needs catered for in the state sector. So badly thought out ….but most of the budget seems to have been the same.

If you scroll to the bottom of this page you should see links to the previous threads.

I can’t see the links to previous threads either….. phone might be slow of course

It's not in any way gaming the system to say that the quotas were a discriminatory travesty - thankfully now stopped, as the evidence came out that showed the unfairness.

I don't think it should be controversial to say that children should be treated in a non-discriminatory way. If they study A levels alongside other children: same teaching, same demographic, same family advantage, then they should be treated equally.

That's what you are so spitefully arguing against.

I know you can't admit it to yourselves, but the truth comes out: hence quotas eventually being stopped. And market forces act against imbalance. In this case, against biased people like you trying to punish children for the iniquity of getting a good education: hence parents moving sector when they choose to.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5237575-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5242586-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-2

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5280646-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-3

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5301690-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-4

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5317397-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-5

Give over.

It’s not ‘spiteful’ to point out that the universities have cottoned on to those that were private up to GCSEs and then state for A level in an attempt to get some kind of admissions advantage.

I’m not ‘biased’ (as you see it), but I can see the inequity of children benefitting from small classes and individual attention up to GCSE in private education and then two years at state for A level as being seen as having had anything like the same school experience as children that have gone fully through the state system in a comprehensive.

Thank you for the new thread and links.

So how long do you want to keep discriminating against those kids who have historically had a better education, and now have better attainment despite now being in the same environment, @sabrinathwaite ?

Just for University entrance? Or would you also discriminate when awarding Uni degrees? Job offers? How long for?

Do you really think that would work?!

And should that discrimination also be applied against those children who went to better state schools as well? Or those who have committed parents and a stable home? (a far bigger advantage than school type)

We're not talking about WP remember: you seem to think that there should be additional discrimination and quotas against certain children. Rather than making allowances for some disadvantaged children, who may not have done themselves justice: but will hopefully start to, if given a different environment at Uni.

Thanks @ICouldBeVioletSkythe figures at the end of the last thread on movement to state were interesting.

Because they’re not in the same environment, are they?

It’s not ‘discriminating’ against (as you put it) kids who have historically had a better education, it’s recognising exactly that fact.

And it’s not comparing student A that went private to GSCE and then joined an excellent state sixth form to student B that was at that same excellent state school all the way through. It’s comparing student A to student C that was at a lower performing state school elsewhere - ie a completely different environment.

Your descent into hyperbole was amusing though, as were the ridiculous views that you keep trying to ascribe to me (which only exist in your fevered imagination).

Keep it up though, I’m enjoying it.

(Cue comments about pigs and pigeons, no doubt).

The Oxbridge thing is a convenient red herring squirrel, but I suspect it will run and run

The real "meat" of the thread (IMO) is whether the VAT policy is of ultimate benefit to everybody. Which means discussion of what 'benefit' means and how one would measure it.

I notice that few supporters of the VAT policy are still pretending that 'benefit' means £££ VAT moolah bonanza for 6500 new teachers, a pile of Weetabix and some roof repairs. (Although in my experience once you have wetted Weetabix, it can set like concrete so maybe we could channel the Weetabix towards the building works.) Recent figures for movement of pupils from private to state, being at least 4-fold greater than the government's optimistic wild guess, would suggest that we'd best not define 'benefit' as a net gain for the taxpayer as it is looking likely the VAT policy will cost the government quite a lot of money.

The 'benefit' then could be improvements to educational attainment such as in advanced maths, language or science programmes. But the government have axed many of these in the past few months, to no complaint from policy supporters. On a previous thread, I recall a VAT supporter issued the eloquent response of "YAWN." And equally there is terrible provision for pupils needing special educational support, the powers that be seeming content to throw many SEN children to the wolves in order to keep costs down. So that doesn't seem to be it.

It looks to me that most likely remaining 'benefit' would be removal of educational choice so that all children are theoretically compelled to be educated together, leading to a utopian uniform melting pot of all abilities and social backgrounds. Since there is a massive diversity of state provision from better-than-private to absolutely disastrous, often associated with exactly the same parental financial resources that are so problematic if they're spent on private fees but not on house catchments or tuition, it's not clear how this utopianly uniform choiceless educational pot is going to be enforced.

Have I missed any 'benefits'?

This could be interesting:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/reform-save-private-schools-risk-labour-tax-raid/?recommid=c0d0c2806552752d60972524779c0fd9

That does look interesting @OhCrumbsWhereNow - if private schools catering to SEND are going bust and it is worse for the Council, I agree they should step in and look at all options. Also a lot of private schools are in trusts with academies with outreach and sharing of facilities. Not all private schools are the islands that Labour may have people believe.
With a closer move to EU ties and standards, this VAT bonanza will likely have a short life anyway.

And it’s not comparing student A that went private to GSCE and then joined an excellent state sixth form to student B that was at that same excellent state school all the way through

Umm, yes, it is. That's exactly what the educational sector quotas were. Explicitly.

Luckily they were removed.

Similar discrimination unfortunately does still exist with offers, like it or not. So people will continue to change their behaviour in response to that discrimination, like it or not.

Yet another example of how the ludicrous VAT policy will up costing the taxpayer money. Unfortunately it looks like we have 4 more years of this government, by which time the damage will have been done.

It could be a lot cheaper for these councils to pair with a failing private and see if it could be revamped to take suitable SEN students, or indeed avoid a lot of expensive SEN kids moving to state if school collapses.

To be clear, the quotas considered student A (who went private to GSCE and then joined an excellent state sixth form) and student B (who was at that same excellent state all the way through) to be the same. And also considered student C (who was at a lower performing state school elsewhere) to also be the same as both.

Only student Z who went private all the way to A level was considered to be different and treated less favourably. Ie discriminated against.

The state school ‘quota’ (as you describe it) was not designed for the students switching from private school to an excellent state for sixth form just to try and tick the state school box. Which is exactly why Oxbridge takes into account where GCSEs were taken.

Very few (if any) universities use attending state school as the only criteria required to be eligible for WP. And before you say ‘but Bristol…’, Bristol is very much an outlier (and your ‘excellent state sixth form’ is unlikely to be on the list).

And your ‘excellent state sixth form’ is unlikely to be on the list

Ours is. I checked. Contextual offers and all.

Cambridge had an explicit quota of how many students to take from state schools versus private schools.

They removed it in 2024.

However, cultural change is slow and bias undoubtedly still exists in offers made.

Universities need to get with the times. Tutoring and highly quality EdTech has become rife all over since Covid. Household income and level of education of the parents are far more relevant these days. My kids learnt more from Savemyexams and me than their school.

Which is why I said ‘unlikely’ rather than ‘definitely won’t be’. Bristol has always had a weird selection, varying from year to year. It cut the list quite considerably from the 23/24 entry for the 24/25 entry. One year it listed a school local to me that didn’t even have a sixth form.

(I did repeatedly say that I was not talking about WP).

That is with regard to passing GCSEs at a high level.

And Oxbridge considering where GCSEs were taken is also not related to WP.

As Cambridge states: It should be noted that we don’t use contextual data to systematically make conditional offers at lower grades, or to make allowances for a poor academic record. This information is simply intended to provide academic assessors with the fullest possible picture of an applicant, and the context in which their achievements occurred.