Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 7

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuation of previous threads discussing VAT on independent school fees. The thread title is a headline from a Times article last autumn.

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
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5337850-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-6

OP, from the prior thread:

Am planning on doing a DSAR of my county council to ask for numbers of secondary applicants stating they have accepted an independent school offer, vs the total number of applicants, for the last 6 years. Will be interesting to see if the proportion has gone down and if so by how much.

What is your goal with this?

IMO the policy will raise some revenue but less than forecast (as happens with every tax rise). The policy will not be reversed by Labour. Badenoch said last year that she would reverse it but let’s see if (a) she is still leader at the next election and (b) if that makes it into the manifesto. Many times politicians fume against something but don’t actually change it back when they get power some years later.

As I understand it, Labour is making no effort to quantify the effect of their policy - whether as to how much money it [ahem] raises vs the cost of pupils moving to state schools as a result, or to quantify the number of pupils moving/families affected, ie the non-financial/human impact. Arguably two sides of the same coin.

Which is rather odd as you’d think they’d be keen to crow about just how many billions they’ve manage to shake from the magic VAT tree and also how few families have had their children’s education completely fucked by it disrupted by it (SEN kids and GCSE and A level students in particular). All of which Keir and chums were keen to impress upon us when trumpeting this policy.

So I’ve been thinking what data points may be available to give us some insight into the effects.

The stats from one LA on the numbers of secondary applicants declining a state offer in favour of independent is by no means a comprehensive indication. But it may provide an interesting snapshot.

Why wouldn't you want to understand the financial and social impact of a contentious tax policy @sheilafentiman ? Even if you don't reverse it, you get better information to help you make decisions about other possible future policies.

And in the worst case - eg Greece's education tax or France's wealth tax - you can choose to reverse the policy to stem the ingoing damage to your economy.

I was asking the poster what her/his goal was.

We all have limited time and I don't believe that any information gathered in the way that OP mentioned (locally) will change the policy, hence asking what the goal was.

Labour have already u-turned on many things (pensioners WFA, grooming gangs, soon to be parts of non dom and the list goes on and on). So why would they not have to u-turn on this if it proves to be a complete flop just harming some kids, not bringing in any money and destroying some communities (job losses)?
Unless the aim really was destruction of private schools and real estate transferred for housing at the cost of education?

My suggestion is that they lower infant class sizes and primary school sizes to 25 which is more in line with other developed countries and increase funding per student. Reintroduce funding for creative subjects and sports in primary and secondary and really focus on well being in secondary and transition initiatives. And reduce secondary class sizes too and have early intervention for all children struggling, whatever their background and need.
Maybe then people will see a point to this policy?
The only argument in favour that I can think of is that nobody should have to feel forced to pay up for private school because their state option is not a good fit.

Because - to pick one of your examples - WFA changes were widely unpopular (for example, there was a vote to reverse it at conference). VAT changes on private schools are not.

Am I right in thinking that the High Court dismissed challenges to this policy?

Additionally @Araminta1003 , the changes to the WFA were not in the Labour manifesto. The VAT policy was.

Yes, you are

Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain found that the policy was "made by Parliament, in primary legislation, after full debate and was a manifesto commitment".

“WFA changes were widely unpopular”.

We have a lot of elderly and pensioners now and many will vote in a self-interested manner so pro NHS spend, pro higher pensions and benefits for themselves at the expense of long term investment in the country.
Investing in the young is crucial at this point. We have a mental health crisis and some of the unhappiest teens in the developed world and we have loads of problems since COVID. Couple that with a flight of talent. It’s important Governments put children and Education first, they are failing to do that. Yet again the NHS is being boosted yet no real boost to Education.
It is not a good. We need the young to be as educated and productive as possible to support an ageing demographic. And we need the ageing demographic who can to pay up themselves and not insist on benefits when they don’t need them.

Why is the VAT on school fees not means tested? Why is a family with a household income below let’s say 80k expected to pay VAT for a child with SEND? Makes zero sense.

Because VAT doesn’t work like that, as I am sure you are smart enough to know. VAT is on a product or service, linked to the price of that service. Hence Value Added Tax.

It’s not means tested when you buy shoes or a boiler service either.

And we need the ageing demographic who can to pay up themselves and not insist on benefits when they don’t need them.

WFA is still means tested, in that it will be paid to all, but clawed back above £35k income. Just the cut off is now higher.

Absolutely agree with this, so would support investment in state education and SEND provision.

“ICouldBeVioletSky · Today 08:29

Here’s and easy solution for you **, it’s called a progressive tax system and it’s what we already have for multiple taxes! Take your pick: income tax, CGT, stamp duty, IHT (arguably).
I know multiple families who have moved specifically to get in catchment houses for our local outstanding state secondary. The houses cost between about £1m and £2.5m
I’m still struggling to understand so maybe you can explain it to me: why shouldn’t these people be asked to pay extra for the service that they are using and instead the entire extra burden be placed on people who are by definition not using the service and might be much less well-off?
Why use VAT on school fees as a proxy for wealth? Why not just tax wealth itself, so tax all richer people more (as per the progressive tax systems we already have in place)?
The only answer I’ve had on here is that it would be less popular with voters. Which is a woeful explanation but at least an honest one. Better than trying to tie yourself in pretzels justifying the unjustifiable….“

@ICouldBeVioletSky - VAT is not and never has been a wealth tax. If you actually read any of my posts from the last thread, you would already know I think, on the whole, that imposing this tax on school fees at a time of instability and massive cost of living increases is a bad idea, as its consequences are unpredictable, it creates anxiety in people who are aspirational while doing nothing to tackle growing wealth inequalities (because as I’ve already pointed out more than once, it isn’t a wealth tax, it’s a spending tax…). So why on earth you are asking me to repeat things I have already said, I don’t know, but can only assume that you are assuming my opinions and politics without reading all my posts, which is also precisely why I am suggesting this is the wrong thread to make personal comments about politicians and political parties on. All anyone is doing by going down that path is sounding a big dog whistle. If posters stick with critiquing the policy, not the party or individual politicians, you might just find people who would not normally agree politically with you in general also have concerns, but you aren’t going to find that out if people turn this into a “Labour can’t be trusted on anything,” thread, or incessantly make assumptions about what other people think.

But hey, if everyone wants to go back to talking about smirking and vindictiveness, then go ahead, but it will only alienate people unnecessarily.

As for progressive taxes, several people on the last thread had already said they would be willing to pay more tax of the progressive sort if they were required to. The fact is, though, they are not being asked. The fact is, VAT on school fees was the low hanging fruit that it was easier to go for. The fact is, all politicians are politicians - they do what they think will get them elected, they don’t tend to commit political suicide by trying to make tax increases that their opposition have backed them into a corner on by claiming that’s what they’re going to increase and that’s why nobody should vote for them. I sincerely doubt that if Labour hadn’t felt it had no other way of increasing tax when it was obvious they needed to increase tax, it wouldn’t actually have gone straight to taxing employment and taxing spending.

As for the idea of charging any parent for accessing a state education, I just think that idea is too ridiculous for words. If you have a problem with parents owning million pound houses, then deal with that if you don’t like it, not with the concept of a universal entitlement to a state education. Once you effectively go down the route of excluding people from state education or the NHS because they are “too wealthy,” the entire social contract breaks down and hardly anybody will see the point in paying tax for anything, because it will cease to be viewed as necessary to enable the functioning of a civilised society and will just be viewed as forced charitable giving (which some wealthy people already already appear to think, whilst they continue to protect and grow their wealth and a growing number of people join the ranks of those not rich enough to avoid being seen as charity cases, because they can’t afford the school fees).

“but can only assume that you are assuming my opinions and politics without reading all my posts”

The irony of this statement when your long post responds to multiple points I’ve never made or even alluded to, and to beliefs I don’t hold/have never expressed.

Just as an example: both my children attend our local state primary, but according to you I think they should be excluded from their school because we are, by most measures, a wealthy family.

How utterly bizarre. 😵‍💫

Sorry, @ICouldBeVioletSky, yes I was responding to the reactions of various posters in the last thread, which is why I referred to “posters” rather than saying “you,” when talking about people commenting about vindictive politicians.

But can you please explain what you meant by this, if not that wealthy state school parents should pay extra for using state schools, but only if they are using those schools (ie effectively pay fees on top of tax for using state schools)? “I’m still struggling to understand so maybe you can explain it to me: why shouldn’t these people be asked to pay extra for the service that they are using and instead the entire extra burden be placed on people who are by definition not using the service and might be much less well-off?” If that was just very badly worded on your part, I apologise, but it certainly implies you think wealthy people using state schools should pay directly to use those schools, but not pay extra if they have opted out of state education.

I disagree it was badly worded but happy to clarify: I think everyone bar the lowest earners should be taxed more to fund the meaningful improvements that are desperately needed in state schools.

The VAT policy makes zero sense morally - to charge all independent school parents when some are scraping together the fees, often for SEN children woefully failed by state, and are not well off. While multimillionaires - some of whom are actually using state schools and indeed spending millions on a house to secure a state school place, contribute nothing extra. I wasn’t suggesting that only rich parents of state school children should pay more, just that it’s illogical that they are exempt from paying more when they have the “broadest shoulders”.

And the policy makes zero sense financially, because even according to the government’s own predictions it was never going to raise enough money to make a meaningful improvement to state schools.

So the policy is just a populist distraction technique, seemingly allowing Labour to pretend they’re doing something to tackle education when they’re doing nothing of the sort.

Once you effectively go down the route of excluding people from state education or the NHS because they are “too wealthy,” the entire social contract breaks down and hardly anybody will see the point in paying tax for anything, because it will cease to be viewed as necessary to enable the functioning of a civilised society and will just be viewed as forced charitable giving

You've got that spot on @walkaround Although I'd extend it to "forced charitable giving and theft". Sadly, until finding out so much as part of the VAT fiasco, I did used to believe that I was part of a functioning, civilised society 😕

Children are already now being excluded from the NHS - supposedly for being too wealthy, but in practice for being part of the hated private school out-group

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/boy-denied-treatment-nhs-hospital-private-school-kingston-richmond-b1231805.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14813331/amp/Suicide-risk-young-daughter-refused-NHS-mental-health-counselling-private-school.html

https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/sick-private-school-pupils-denied-access-education

Private school children are evidenced to be discriminated against for access to top universities.

-The 2019 Cambridge paper 'Analysis of student characteristics and attainment outcomes at the University of Cambridge' shows 19% of children from comprehensives getting firsts versus 26% of those from private schools, evidence of restricted admission
https://www.cao.cam.ac.uk/admissions-research/app-research-papers-2020
(4th file down)

-Statistics for offers for children who switched sectors shows a persistent bias against private school applicants, over 7 years. In 2022, the acceptance rate was 24 per cent for those who changed to sixth form college and 25 for those who switched to grammar. This was almost 33 per cent higher than the 19 per cent acceptance rate for private school children. If you extrapolate, 25% of state school students at Cambridge wouldn't have got in if they had applied from private school.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/16/private-schools-university-entry-cambridge-state-schools

-And of course, Labour want even more. BP and the 'Labour against private schools' pressure group she supported wanted private school students pushed for private students to be restricted to 20% of offers. I surely don't need to explain how utterly ludicrous that is.

I'm honestly weighing up sixth form: whether I keep my DD at her existing excellent private - which I think is the best educational choice for her, or move her to state to avoid discrimination throughout her life (I think most of what I'm seeking from private has been achieved by then), or whether to look at EU options (I'm dual mational. DH has access to an EU nationality but will need to acquire it).

The NHS exclusion really is the last straw. Not because of an immediate impact on my child (I do trust that she would get emergency care) but because of what it all reveals about UK establishments and attitudes and what that means for my family's future.

I agree with you, now you have clarified - yes of course everyone with the broadest shoulders should contribute. VAT doesn’t pick on those with the broadest shoulders and I don’t believe VAT on private school fees is going to be specially ring-fenced for state schools, anyway - the DfE budget has already been allocated, regardless of what money is brought in from VAT on school fees, and the increases for education are not enough to keep up with increases in costs.

I don’t think your dd will be discriminated against in the medium to long term (or in the short term, if academically very able) for having gone to an excellent private school, @strawberrybubblegum . That’s not the way the real world works. What the data certainly demonstrates is that disadvantage settles in young and is hard to make up for later on, yet as a society we have a growing proportion of children growing up in poverty. This can’t really be made up for by fiddling around at the level of university admission, it needs investment at an earlier age, for the benefit of the whole of society. And yes, it is shocking that anyone should be refused NHS treatment, although the sad reality is, NHS care for the young is so overstretched that, unless you can afford to pay, you’re going to have a hard time accessing adequate support from CAMHS, occupational therapy, speech therapy, physiotherapy, etc, in any event, regardless of income.

The CAMHS case is bad and seems like it wasn’t in line with policy, from the comment of the local health authority. To
note, CAMHS are overstretched and too quick to discharge in many many cases.

The provision of free education for
children in hospital long term seems to - administratively - be for children enrolled in a state school. I would assume that home
educated children as well as children at private school would need to pay to access. In any event, it is an educational exclusion, not an exclusion for NHS treatment.

With the occupational therapy case, this seems as if a particular local authority is using budget to provide OT in/for schools. Again, I don’t think it’s an NHS exclusion and might well also apply to home educated children.

Don’t get me wrong, none of the above are ideal. But it’s hyperbole to imply that the NHS might only give emergency treatment to private school pupils.

Adding to my post above - it might also be that if a child was in a school outside of the local authority which was funding a specific intervention etc, then it wouldn’t be covered.

@strawberrybubblegum - as a parent, we should choose educational opportunities for our children to maximise outcome, given what we have available, reasonably speaking. All any of us can do is provide the best opportunities, within our means.
It is a competitive and international world out there now, who knows what will happen in the next decades. What I do know is that the young and educated will be universally valued. If they are underestimated here, the world will be her oyster anyway. So why would you limit her opportunities based on propaganda?

And even for us state school parents we get a lot of hate if we choose to send them to eg grammar school. I tend to just ignore it and smile.

I do really feel for parents of SEND children right now though. The uncertainty is a killer, not just in the private sector. All these rumours of them ditching EHCPs potentially for pushy middle class parents. It is plain nasty. All children deserve to be given attention. Our class sizes and resources for children in this country are inadequate.