Labour’s plans for VAT on Private Schools

[Busydadof2]

The Labour Party has proposed introduction of VAT on private schools.

In the scheme of things the money they will bring in from this is tiny compared with total expenditure on state schools, while it will drive more burden on the state system as some parents leave private schools. I think this is a populist ploy to get traditional Labour voters to vote for what is in any other sense a centrist party.

Have you considered signing this petition to make sure the policy gets scrutinised and the weight of public sentiment against it is known?

Change.org petition: Stop Labour from adding 20% VAT to private school fees and forcing kids to change schools

www.change.org/p/stop-labour-from-adding-20-vat-to-private-school-fees-and-forcing-kids-to-change-schools

Various perspectives from the signatories of this vote come to mind and resonate with our own situation, including this: “I work in a state school with over 30 in a class and oversubscribed. My 2 kids went or go to private schools and we have sacrificed loads to do this. We are NOT wealthy, many of the kids at the school I work at live in bigger houses and have much more disposable income than we do. We chose to send our kids to private school rather than live in a bigger house instead of our semi detached on a main road. We holiday in the UK every year and I work full time. I buy my clothes on the high street or in charity shops. Many parents at the school my kids attend are in exactly the same situation. I agree there are some very wealthy parents there too and the addition of VAT will not even make an impact on them, they will pay it without batting an eyelid. All this will do is push the kids like ours back into an already oversubscribed state system, increase class sizes even more and create a bigger divide as private education will become truly elitist.”

@Marchesman

None of which considers the effect of selective state education on those who are not selected. Just using numbers of children achieving a degree after experiencing a grammar school education will give blindingly obvious results and will entirely miss the point as to whether selective schools are overall a benefit to society.

But we’ve been told that Northern Ireland is a beacon of great state education, in which many schools are grammars.

Which is it? Comprehensive only? Or other possibilities?

I do hear and accept the evidence that the English school system allows for the few grammars to be exploited by the better off.

But I never see any proper argument against the expansion of grammars in England - and the potential social and financial levelling effect of that - or against the frankly cynical use of house purchase to create MC enclaves of comps - which is absolutely rife, no matter what MNers say.

@Hobbi "Just using numbers of children achieving a degree after experiencing a grammar school education will give blindingly obvious results and will entirely miss the point as to whether selective schools are overall a benefit to society."

That is true it would.

However, the ratios that I cited relate to all children - whether grammar school educated or not.

On the issue of missing the point, your terminology is misleading. It should be clear to you that comprehensive schools are selective, even if you prefer to ignore the evidence of the harm that this has caused.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

I don't know the full story about grammar schools in Northern Ireland. I've read that their success is often tied up with the religious nature of the schools which we see achieving more highly in English schools, for various reasons. I do know that the outcomes for children in Northern Ireland from low income families who don't attend grammar schools is among the worst in the UK. I don't deny that house prices act as a proxy for selection in England, that's one of the reasons why the focus on schools as a method for levelling up is a complete red herring. I've said many times on this thread, and been wilfully ignored, that the idea that school systems aid in social or educational mobility is a category error. Level up communities and local economies, better schools will follow.

NI grammar schools success has nothing to do with religion. I went to one and have two children in them.
Some are very academic and get the best results on the uk- not surprising as need to be in the top 20% of children to get in.
About 50% of children sit the transfer and of those 40% get a grammar place, but you need to be in the top half of those to get into the most over subscribed, mostly in the greater Belfast area. Single sex take lower generally than mixed.
It is absolutely correct that working class kids have the worst outcomes in the UK, but this is not really down to the schools, it is much more complex than this and tied up with intergenerational trauma and historic things in relation to valuing education.

On that - tackling greater underlying inequalities - I can happily agree.

The trouble is that there’s no easy or quick solution. We have to use all the levers available, and fairly, which includes allowing children to be educated to their full potential as part of a push for equality.

I really do not believe that allowing comps to be the playthings of the well-heeled progressive middle classes, together with tutors, crammers and ‘improving’ holidays, is any sort of step forward.

Expanding grammars seems altogether more sensible.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

Thank you for your civil response. I don't think much will be changed until society is much more equal overall and I think that needs to be acknowledged - because otherwise governments of all colours can use teachers, parents and children themselves as convenient scapegoats. That's why as a teacher, the change of government in 1997 felt different - it felt like there was some sort of collective agreement on recognising what children from poorer areas could contribute and achieve. It wasn't perfect, and pandering to certain vested interests eventually led to the academies programme which reintroduced the neoliberal obsession with competition rather than cooperation and consigned ordinary comprehensives to low funding and an impossible playing field. The self interest and selfishness in all aspects of life we see now feel just like the 80s and I can only hope that this mean spirited public disease will eventually give way to a recognition that we really are all in this together. I won't bet my house on it happening soon though, it's been planned and fomented for a long time.

I think the difference with the Labour Party in 1997 was that the policies were more about helping raise standards at the lower end, to try to bring everyone up to the same level. There was hope that standards would be raised, leading to greater equality and improved standards. That idea is a good one. The current Labour policies seem to be about aiming for equality by bringing the top end down and by reducing standards.

@Another76543

You may be right I don't know - I think there's some talent in the shadow cabinet (not enough) and I think Starmer is very intelligent, just probably not politically savvy or deceitful enough for modern politics. The last 14 years and particularly the last 8 has seen us experience the worst government since...... well after scouring the historical record, it's very difficult to find a worse one, certainly the mid nineteenth century. Incompetence, criminality, dishonesty, economic illiteracy, corruption and divisiveness. I lived through the 80s and wasn't one of Thatcher's chosen few. I'm genuinely heartbroken that my children are experiencing this shower. They need throwing out definitively and we need a more grown up political system and more grown up politicians.

@Another76543

Incidentally, which standards do you think would be lowered?

@Another76543 "The current Labour policies seem to be about aiming for equality by bringing the top end down and by reducing standards."

Could you elaborate?

Some people disagree with the existence of private schools because they believe it leads to social inequity. However, believing that comprehensive education leads to social equity is also untrue.
Many people who say that private schools are unfair are at the same time willing to move to an area with a better comprehensive school. Logically, you cannot hold the belief that private schools should not exist but still be prepared to move your child to a school in a better area. It is the same principle-using your wealth or advantage to get better schooling for your children.

I do not criticise anyone for choosing the best option for their children-this is entirely natural. I do criticise people for being hypocritical about what they would be prepared to do for their children.

The Sutton Trust found that "if you qualify for Free School Meals you are less likely than your advantaged peers to attend a top performing comprehensive even if there is one in your local area."

https://www.suttontrust.com/news-opinion/all-news-opinion/not-so-comprehensive-schools/#:~:text=New%20research%20published%20by%20the,one%20in%20your%20local%20area.

I'm in favour of both/either.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Let’s deal with the middle class hypocrites first. Not only do they have the privilege of money but they’re exploiting and distorting a public service that we all pay for.

At least the private school folk only have the money.

I think it is not wrong but entirely natural for parents to want to get the best education for their children. I was just making the point that it is illogical for someone to be against private schools if they are also willing to move their child to a better comprehensive school.

The fairest way to educate children is to have a fair admissions policy to comprehensives like Brighton and Hove are trying to introduce. However, this would not work where I live as it is a rural area with a poor transport system and kids would have to take two or three buses to go to other schools based on fair admissions criteria.

Like brexit, I think this populist policy is going to end up costing the government more money than it saves. The influx of kids from private to state education will not only cost more at an average of £8K per state place, but place further pressure on state schools and displace children from the schools that best meet their needs

@Busydadof2 Figures, please.

Labour does not care about that and in my judgment, labour bangs on about equality but just look at where a lot of them send their children to school and their wealth. Like all good political parties, they are hypocrites and will jump on any bandwagon to get more votes.

Labout knows the mass of votes comes from the unemployed and low wages and at the time of voting most of that group will be thinking "we cant afford private schools" and therefore see vAT on private schools as good

As most of us know, the majority of children in schools are from ordinary families with their own property, payingmortgages doing 50 hours a week sending their child/chirldren to private education to get them a better future.

The bit I don't understand is this -

DC currently in state primary but we are looking at moving to private. It would be a huge stretch (especially w/ vat on top) but we could do it

If we stay state, that's another £000s the government is going to have to cover, and more of our money in the bank for investment/holidays/DC house deposit down the road etc.

How is that levelling anything up?

The petition link isn’t working?

Here is a link to the petition:
https://www.change.org/p/stop-labour-from-adding-20-vat-to-private-school-fees-and-forcing-kids-to-change-schools

Absolutely valid point

Here you go, I took two seconds to google for you

https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics

@Melgin @Busydadof2 I failed to make myself clear. I was asking for figures related to the "influx" of private pupils to state schools when VAT is imposed.