Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 6

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

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

Or how about the taxpayer footing the bill for all of this:

• 21 acres of grass rugby, hockey, cricket, and football pitches
• Two full size, sand dressed synthetic pitches providing two full size hockey pitches or 18 x tennis courts
• Heated indoor swimming pool
• Sports hall Squash courts

https://www.pocklingtonschool.com/facilities-hire

‘You’ve just identified what a joke the VAT on private school fees policy is.’

Executive headteacher and former government special adviser Mark Lehain claims we’re seeing Labour’s ‘disaster’ policy in action.

Except is isn't a joke for the 13K kids who have been forced out of their schools, the 70 schools which have closed + the 1000s of teachers and staff who have lost their jobs. It isn't a joke, it isn't funny .

I think it is bad. Look at the scrabbling we do to avoid similar tariff / taxes. In Labour’s case they go for 20% on a sector we do quite well on just for optics not economic sense.

There’s plenty saying it is too much for other sectors to bear but for some reason children’s education being hit is great.

Our comp pays for horse riding lessons as a PE option.

What are you talking about? State schools shouldn't have no facilities at all, no matter how much you'd prefer that.

And Pocklington is a private school with £24k/year day and £45k/year boarding fees

@EasternStandard ,

Are you saying that you are against VAT full stop?

VAT and tariffs are two different things, something that Trump, sadly, fails to understand.

I was talking about a stable full of kept, owned horses as a throwaway example of the luxuries involved in private school fees, not lessons with independent providers. But can see it's sidetracked the discussion, so forget it

No, you said horses and steinways are isolated incidents in state schools. I'm pointing out that they aren't!
Taxpayer funds state schools + parents pay for boarding. So they get double funding but are exempt VAT???

Yes sorry wrong link forPocklington!

Fundamentally you agree with taxing education? More than taxing vapes or betting? Because Labour thought it was more important to tax education than those other 2.

@Newbutoldfather I’m aware of the difference don’t worry. But a 20% hit will hurt a sector no matter what form it takes. You have damage to jobs included in that.

That’s why for most things we try to avoid just landing a sector with that extra charge, except education and people are fine.

Going back to your luxury dining example which is where I think you’re heading with the next question the main difference is the state picks up the extra burden, which is why some countries do the opposite.

If no extra money comes in from this is there a point to it?

That’s an independent school.

So is Pocklington.

Quite funny that in seeking to expose the "luxuries" available.in the state sector, they've posted links to incredibly expensive private schools with hugely luxurious "arms race" facilities. As I said, it's a luxury tax not an education tax. Maybe they should compromise and not tax the first £8k/year of fees and put 20% (or, if they need to raise the money, 25%) on the remainder.

‘education and vocational training provided by a private school, or a connected person for a charge, will be taxable at the standard (20%) rate of VAT.’

It’s an education tax.

@FairMindedMaiden

You are paying for the watersports centre at this state school

It’s an independent school. Not a state school.

?

@twistyizzy cites Pocklington and Windermere as examples of state schools where the tax payer is paying for outstanding facilities - only they are both private schools.

It’s a sales tax on services that are purchased - like provision that includes the water sports at Windermere or the sports facilities at Pocklington.

What is? You’ve lost me a bit, I think you might be replying to another poster. Are you saying the education tax is a tax on water sports and sport facilities? They don’t mention either in the definition:

“education and vocational training provided by a private school, or a connected person for a charge, will be taxable at the standard (20%) rate of VAT.”

What’s your position on kids educated at state school up to GCSE and then moved to private system for A Levels, then?

No, I’m saying apparently we should all be up in arms about these ‘state schools’ providing wonderful facilities at the tax payers cost.

Point out that these wonderful facilities are actually being provided at independent schools for a service charge and apparently these aren’t wonderful facilities and in no way should attract any kind of sales tax.

Ok, thanks for letting me know.

I’m not sure what your point is? Students may (or may not) achieve higher grades by going private for sixth form, it’s a popular choice. Is it giving any perceived admissions benefits other than grades?

I know several tutors at Oxbridge colleges who participate in admissions annually, and who are privy to discussions about admissions amongst their colleagues in other disciplines. They ALL say that there is active discrimination against privately educated applicants, particularly those from the major public schools. They all know Fellows who brag quite openly about only letting in state school applicants. Yes, the university admissions systems use a range of metrics based on postcode to try to 'level the playing field' when scoring candidates prior to interview (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to in your last point about contextual offers), but the tutors who actually make the decisions are free to find reasons to dump private school candidates should they wish to do so.

You appear to be suggesting that students who have benefited from private school educations up to GCSE will carry that benefit through into their A Levels even if they then go to a state school. My question is do you think it's the case that students who have been state educated up to GCSE will carry the assumed disadvantage through their A Levels even if they move to a private school? Should universities take this historic disadvantage into account? Or

You appear to be suggesting that students who have benefited from private school educations up to GCSE will carry that benefit through into their A Levels even if they then go to a state school.

I find it hard to believe that students that voluntarily switch to a state school or college for sixth form would choose one that isn’t high performing.

My question is do you think it's the case that students who have been state educated up to GCSE will carry the assumed disadvantage through their A Levels even if they move to a private school?

My question would be why are these students switching to private for sixth form? Their parents think the investment is worth it? The private school is satisfied that the student can achieve well enough to meet university admissions criteria?

Would the private school still take the student if it thought the student wouldn’t be able to perform well enough?

Well, it might not be voluntary. A parent might have lost their job, or VAT additions might make it unaffordable, or perhaps the school may have closed. If the state school the child then attended was a poor one, should that make a difference to university admissions tutors?
The parents might choose to move the child to a private school at sixth form because of bullying, or because the child had only been offered a place in a very poor school at which safeguarding issues had been raised. There could be lots of reasons. You'd have to assume that the private school would accept the child only on the basis that they passed entrance tests, so yes, in spite of the child's previous state education he or she is at a sufficient level to attend the private school. That being the case, should he or she be judged according to his or her state school (to GCSE) or private school (A Levels) educational background by the university?
The reason I ask is that your previous posts seem to suggest that you think universities ought to 'see through' what might in some cases be a ruse used by canny parents to disguise their child's private school education by switching for the final years to a state school, or in other words, to judge a candidate more harshly if he or she has attended a private school prior to A Levels. My point is simply that it can be very unclear when or how a private education may have conferred an advantage on a student, and the reasons for sending a child to a private school at some point during his or her school career can be complex and varied, so discriminating against students purely on the basis that they have at any point benefited from any kind of private education is precisely that, discriminatory.

Well, it might not be voluntary. A parent might have lost their job, or VAT additions might make it unaffordable, or perhaps the school may have closed. If the state school the child then attended was a poor one, should that make a difference to university admissions tutors?

Up until the last few months, nobody has switched due to VAT. And it’s always been the case that parents’ circumstances might change or that schools might close. Extenuating circumstances can be flagged on UCAS applications.

A PP posted a Telegraph article suggesting that moving to a grammar or state sixth form might improve chances of going to Oxbridge. Moving to a comprehensive doesn’t improve chances. The Telegraph also helpfully linked to the sixth form colleges that send the most students to Oxbridge; unsurprisingly, not all sixth form colleges are equal.

You'd have to assume that the private school would accept the child only on the basis that they passed entrance tests, so yes, in spite of the child's previous state education he or she is at a sufficient level to attend the private school. That being the case, should he or she be judged according to his or her state school (to GCSE) or private school (A Levels) educational background by the university?

Given that the context of the discussion was Oxbridge admissions (which would consider where GCSEs were taken), can you tell me which other UK universities would consider separately where GCSEs and A levels were taken?

The reason I ask is that your previous posts seem to suggest that you think universities ought to 'see through' what might in some cases be a ruse used by canny parents to disguise their child's private school education by switching for the final years to a state school, or in other words, to judge a candidate more harshly if he or she has attended a private school prior to A Levels.

Again, the discussion was specifically regarding Oxbridge admissions, where both universities consider the context of the schools where GCSEs and A levels were taken. Is it ‘judging more harshly’ or objectively assessing the benefits / disbenefits of school types?