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

But they are considering it as much - state schools have been closing at a fast rate. Did the state consider those children who had to find other state schools? Yes, obviously, just not as much as those children and families would have liked. A private school closing is not automatically more sad than a state school closing for the families affected.

You could also ask whether the state cares sufficiently when people who have been made homeless are housed hundreds of miles from where they grew up. I don’t remember the conservatives sounding sympathetic when people said that it was cruel and more should be done to ensure people stay near their existing support networks - it was very much needs must, if you can’t afford to live in London, then get out, leave the schools, friends and communities who are your support structure, and count yourself lucky to have anything at all.

Those NHS exclusions for private schools we spoke about upthread feed into my anger at the government rhetoric reinforcing that private school children are not worthy of concern.

@SheilaFentiman - you justified 2 of the 3 as being that the programs were paid for by the LA and organised through state schools - and that home-schooled children may also be excluded.

However, it's jarring that the flu immunisation programme does include private schools. NHS nurses go into private schools and administer the immunisations - perfectly easy. But of course the flu immunisation programme aren't for the children's benefit - it's for vulnerable people in the community.

The government are perfectly capable of including our children when they want something from them. But not when it's about their wellbeing.

„Our state schools need teachers more than private schools need embossed stationery. Our children need mental health support more than private schools need new pools. Our students need careers advice more than private schools need AstroTurf pitches.“

The implication is actually even worse. The private school kids themselves are dehumanised. The private school kids are not just „not our children“, they have become an institution fronted by an anonymous „school“.

I disagree - that’s not othering the children at all, it’s othering the schools. The children leaving the private schools will definitely need teachers more than they need embossed stationery when they arrive in the state sector, hoping for a reasonable education.

But what is a private school? It’s a community of staff and children (and their parents)? You cannot pretend it’s anything else. That’s classic othering and dehumanising.

But there is no reference to the children in state schools with reference to teachers in that quote - are you saying they have dehumanised “their” children, too? Or was it just impossible not to refer to children in general at some point?

I mean, maybe you disagree that all children need access to mental health support and careers advice, but not all children need Astroturf pitches and embossed stationery?

That’s such a bad quote. Labour do themselves no favours.

** - you justified 2 of the 3 as being that the programs were paid for by the LA and organised through state schools - and that home-schooled children may also be excluded.

Please do not misrepresent me. I did not “justify” them. I noted that they may be funded by LOCAL Authorities for children in LA-administered schools in those authorities (I am not sure if administered is the right term because academies do some of their own admin, but every academy falls within an LA to some extent) .

The NATIONAL Health Service administers a national programme of vaccines for children and it is convenient for them to do this through all types of schools - if a child is absent on the day or is home educated, I assume they can go to a pharmacist or GP. To note, this was true for vaccines under the previous government also.

Is it always straightforward to see what is health care, what is social care and what is education? No, but that’s cos many things cross over. Is it always straightforward to see what is a central government funded responsibility and what is local? No, because it’s all evolved over time. Again, I commend the book Failed State.

But to attribute this complexity to some Machiavellian Labour motive is… quite the stretch.

Now, if she’d said, “Our children need teachers more than private school children do,” I’d agree with you, but she didn’t. She referred to state schools, private schools, and children.

Seriously, no children were ostracised. Words have meanings and ostracism is ignoring someone or physically casting them out. Prioritising one group over another in a political speech just isn’t ostracism.

I think any teacher knows that pupils will care very little about VAT unless it affects them personally, or their parents have indoctrinated them to do so.

If people can't see anything wrong with that quote, I despair.

It completely misrepresents both the state and the private sector and was designed to whip up antagonism

And @newbutoldfather it sounds like you are the product of a particular type of independent school and worked at similar, as the parents at your school sound awfully entitled and you obviously didn't like them very much. Not representative of many many schools.

It’s political rhetoric - manipulative, but in no way whatsoever ostracising children. It is dismissive of what private school fees are actually paying for, though, no doubt because it suits the VAT argument to describe private education as a luxury service. I have heard and read infinitely worse from the mouths of Conservative and Reform politicians, where human beings genuinely are being demonised and othered to suit the argument, so I find it hard to be shocked by this provocative, but actually phenomenally limited, attack on private school parents’ spending choices. It certainly doesn’t read as the utterances of a would-be communist party setting out on a deliberate campaign to destroy the private sector.

@TooLittleTooLate2 ,

‘And ** it sounds like you are the product of a particular type of independent school and worked at similar, as the parents at your school sound awfully entitled and you obviously didn't like them very much. Not representative of many many schools.’

I liked 70% of them fine and we had a great (professional) relationship, but there was a significant minority who were extremely entitled and seemed to think that school fees meant that they could treat the teachers as domestic servants.

Sorry @Sheilafentiman - I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I thought your answer was even-handed and thoughtful, as is your last post pointing out the different functions which may be organised differently. (Although I'd be surprised if Occupational Health at Kingston Hospital wasn't part of the NHS). When I said you "justified" the NHS exclusions I meant how you suggested possible justifications for why they might have done those things due to administration rather than exclusion. My post came across wrong.

Perhaps you're right that there could be genuine reasons. But for me, in conjunction with everything else - and particularly Labour's rhetoric, as well as posters on here over the months - it's left a really bad taste in my mouth.

I am glad that you haven't given up trust in the UK. Your recommendation 'Failed state' sounds interesting, I'll read it when I get a chance.

I don’t know about that. I have heard very similar comments from teachers in grammar schools. These types of parent exist in all schools, but it’s hard to deny there will be more of them that way inclined in schools where all of the parents are heavily invested in the importance of academic achievement as a route to success.

Words have power, and politicians should be careful how they use them.

Margaret Thatcher was never forgiven for 'no such thing as society' although if you actually read that speech, it was completely misrepresented by the Left, and was simply an early expression of "there's no magic money tree".

I'll never forgive Labour for "our children"

But that’s your interpretation. I interpret our children as all our children, because that makes more sense from the quote imvho. You dislike and distrust Labour, so you interpret it differently.

And you like and trust Labour?

More than Reform or the Tories, tbh.

Another reason why I think “our children” means all our children is because it does not make sense to say that state schools do not belong to us all, given the fact we have a universal education system, so nobody is excluded from it. Only private schools can exclude the majority of children, so they are not “our” private schools, they belong only to the people paying for them.

Yes, it's my interpretation, my judgement.

What else would would I base my beliefs and my actions on?

But that again misrepresents private schools as all being academic hot houses when they are all very different and have different priorities. Some are undoubtedly as you and oldbutnewfather describe but it's not representative of many