Is it a spoof post? You don't honestly believe that people are falling for this despicable, divisive and dishonest narrative? This blinkered refusal to listen to reason would be laughable if it weren't so cruel.
We're alone in Europe in taxing education (ask the Greeks how it went for them) and alone in many other global jurisdictions. Many countries subsidise independent school-use, so as to free up resources for others.
"....but one thing that can have the biggest positive impact for children is making sure they go to school."
This HAS to be a joke. Where will children displaced from independent schools go, when the LA has confirmed already that there aren't any spaces within a 34-mile round trip? What happens when classes of 32 children have to be expanded even further, to accommodate ever more children? Many of those children joining the state sector in the middle of the year have additional learning needs. Where's that funding coming from? How will you choose whose existing state school children will be disadvantaged when their already megre support is shared with several others?
You must think we're stupid if you believe we don't remember Emily Thornberry's honest comments about increasing class sizes, and the way you all rushed to shut her up.
How are you going to fund the teaching, SEND support and transport costs of those children moving to the state sector, who you've not had to fund before? Taxis to drive my three children to school will be required to cover a 35-mile round trip. What's that? £20k for just one family? If 10% of children UK-wide leave independent schools, you'll make no money at all from this unpalatable scheme, but you will have damaged the mental health of countless children, forced other families to move abroad, reduce their hours, or give up work entirely, impacting tax revenue, increasing demand for mental health services and generating an enormous demand for SEND support in already overstretched state schools.
"....to ensure that where you’re from doesn’t determine where you end up."
What drivel. My family is the living embodiment of social mobility. I'm the only one in my group of university friends who went to non selective state schools. I was the first in my family to go to university. And you're doing your utmost to ensure I'm punished for my achievements and life choices, made to protect my children.
Our son was coming out of school by the age of 6, saying "I'm rubbish at maths." He was picked on by another child and the teachers told them to "sort it out yourselves." When he had something stolen from a communal area where they had to keep things, he was told, "you should have looked after it better." Victim-blaming started young at his village "outstanding" primary school.
We moved him, taking help from family and cutting out anything we could. He's been there one year and one term and has worked his socks off to catch up with his peers. He's not yet caught up.
You're punishing families paying school fees whilst turning a very blind eye to those families paying millions of pounds to live in the most exclusive state catchment areas, so as to access the best state schools. They're pushing out vulnerable children whose parents can't afford to live there, thus using their wealth to buy a better education. But not only are they effectively paying for a great education, they're taking state funding, pushing others into poorer schools, and using their wealth to pay for sports clubs, music lessons, private tutors (including to get an advantage in grammar school admissions), holidays to the Maldives, the Burma, to Australia... they're highly likely to be on very high salaries, with more valuable properties and are able to fund all sorts of "privileges" many can't afford. The 93% is not, as you'd have us believe, a universally impoverished demographic. Plenty of state schools are truly excellent and house prices in their miniscule cstchments means only the wealthiest may attend.
In your view, parents like Keir Starmer, (who was "lucky" enough to take up a free place at Eleanor Palmer, when so many other local children couldn't live close enough) aren't the issue. It's parents like me who you say have the broadest shoulders and whose children you don't care about. You care about the privileged few at schools like Eleanor Palmer, simply because they're in the 93%.
You don't care that my 6 year old started to suffer with migraines, sound sensitivity, difficulty processing information. You don't care that we're at the start of a SEND investigation journey. The school supports him brilliantly without a diagnosis but we sure will pursue one now, given the risk that we'll have to require the state sector to pay for his ongoing support.
The problem isn't those using wealth to hog the best state school places, preventing others from doing so; it's those parents who are paying for state education through their taxes, but who aren't taking funding out of that system and are paying again for their own children. We're being told to pay a third time. We're working class parents, who have worked and progressed from their modest roots, who struggle to afford school fees, who cut out holidays, drive older used cars, and are having to sell our home in order to help pay fees, due to this spiteful tax.
State sold should absolutely have the funding they need. But it should come from general taxation, it should not be causing distress to thousands of children. Tax the cost of putting a bet on a horse if we're so desperate for cash.