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

Natural use of the English language?

No it doesn’t, given the fact I said that type of parent exists in all schools; that I referred to grammar schools; and that the other school referred to was the one @Newbutoldfather teaches in.

😄
I include that in "my interpretation, my judgement"

To me, the juxtaposition made it very clear that BP did not include my daughter amongst the deserving.

You are free to interpret her rhetoric more optimistically.

But your daughter would be welcome in the state sector, so she is one of Labour’s children…

Obviously, you might not actually want to view her as Labour’s child! 🤣

She shouldn't need to go to a state-controlled school to be considered a valid and deserving part of UK society.

It is incredibly offensive of you to suggest that.

That is not the suggestion, though. To say someone is welcome is not to say they are obliged. So to be honest, it is an extreme overreaction that you find it offensive to say that somebody is welcome somewhere.

You can put 2 + 2 together and imagine that BP meant 5, because you think 5 is a nicer number so surely she meant that

I will not.

I make 4. But then I’m not offended by my children being welcome in the state sector.

What I would find offensive is to lose my children’s place in a private school and then find I was not actually welcome or adequately catered for in the state sector, which may be the case for some parents with children with SEN.

Has the Education secretary said that your DC are not 'Our children'?

I fear that may happen to some. I fervently hope it doesn't.

The Education Secretary hasn’t said that about anyone’s children. She has been rude about the spending choices of some parents, though.

I would far, far rather that it turned out I was completely wrong about everything I've said about the consequences of this policy. That would be great.

(briefly embarrassing, but great)

I think you are wrong about the intentions (there are not nearly enough far left people in the cabinet). The consequences are somewhat unpredictable, though, which is concerning for all people who care about all of our children.

You have your judgement, I have mine.

Apologies, I'm answering too quickly. You did say 'think'

I think that is part of the problem though. Some of the secondary school years have the highest birth rates ever so for those forced out there aren't always going to be good state options available or anywhere nearby. The alternative is home schooling, and possibly a parent reducing work to support. I imagine home schooling stats will continue to increase which is fine if that's the right choice for a family but for many it won't feel like a choice. I think the idea of being welcomed is very unrealistic. And yes there are then the SEN children who are unable to access a suitable in-school option

Yes, it is part of the problem and risk, but I don’t think it is deliberate, I think VAT was really, genuinely trying to bring in more money, because without more money coming in, Labour cannot fund education properly, cannot improve the state of the NHS, cannot do anything about the social care disaster, cannot massively increase defence spending to keep the US happy, and cannot embark on ambitious infrastructure projects. It’s looking under the sofa cushions in the hope of finding spare change.

It’s a nasty quote. It shows the motivation for a poor policy. Which hopefully will be dropped soonish

The poster did not suggest this in any way!

Reading BP's quote again: it really is completely outrageous and unacceptable.

A government secretary of state is inciting the population to decide what privately owned property out-group children 'need' and says the state will take whatever it deems 'not needed' and give it to the more deserving. Our state schools'. 'Our children'. '

That is pretty hard left!

Respect for property ownership is fundamental to a working society. Things go pretty badly wrong for everyone when that goes - although of course it is initially very gratifying for the mob.

DD's school has neither embossed paper nor astroturf. The state school round the corner has astroturf: but they are 'our children', so Comrade BP allows it. Some animals are more equal that others. In plain sight.

IMO, the philosophy of the quote is that - if private schools need to cut base fees (so that base fees plus VAT are not as high as they might be) - then there are “luxuries” that they can cut to achieve this.

Of course, not every private school has a swimming pool. But it’s notable that BP didn’t include teachers etc in her quote. More the “extras” that private schools have (at least, some of them) over and above state schools.

It isn’t anything like Animal Farm!

Extras that are privately owned.

Despite state schools also having extras such as swimming pools and astroturf - state owned - which are not in her sights. Because they benefit 'our children'.

No, you are missing my point - the quote is (IMO) relating to areas where a private school might cut costs to keep fees plus VAT down. It’s no different to her saying “maybe cut down on the pool tables and coffee subscriptions” if putting tax on tech-bro, Silicon Roundabout type companies.