To think a lot of people who agree with VAT on school fees…

[geeenuoe]

Actually don’t truly understand that to most sending their kids to these schools, it is a massive, massive struggle already.

There seems to be a mentality that if you can afford 20k a year then you’re already comfortable so sod it, you should find more cash now for vat … but do people in general not understand that some families re mortgage their homes to pay these fees? Yes there’s mega wealthy people but there’s many, many more who are not.

On the one hand we hear a good education is a luxury so VAT must be applied, then on the other we are told a good education is a right for all. So… why are we taking away that good education from those who already have it? Why is the focus not on sorting out the state sector properly? We all know the vat won’t fix the state sector. It may help in a tiny way in ad hoc circumstances but there’s so so so much more that needs to be done to state schools to make them ever match what the private sector offers.

I simply don’t get this mentality that those making sacrifices must make more when it comes to bloody education. I say this as someone who can’t afford the fees but if I could I absolutely would… and I also acknowledge that I am unwilling to go to some lengths that others will to pay it. I respect the choice of others to make such sacrifices and have no desire to make it harder and more inaccessible for the masses to access it. Similarly, I know plenty of people driving fancy cars and spending loads on holidays… they’ve chosen that over school fees. And those who have spend loads getting into a postcode of a decent state school… should they be paying enhanced tax on their house purchase?

Why do most people think those who pay schools fees are doing so with great ease? Is it basically because they don’t personally know people paying this so accept the media narrative that it’s the mega rich only?

Well good, because no one is.

It seems that it won’t raise as much as originally stated, and may not raise much at all. Parents are already changing their behaviour, and fewer children are have entered private schools in year 7. This is not due to a smaller year group, the state secondaries are complaining they don’t have space. The smaller year groups are still in the primary schools, so this shortfall in children wasn’t expected yet.
And this is the tip of the iceberg, as the VAT hasn’t come in yet.
For all the posters who say they don’t care, do you care that this is the only extra funding that is being promised for the state sector? While parents are being played off against each other, we aren’t hold the government to account. State schools deserve more funding, but it shouldn’t be dependent on the VAT on private schools fees, as this looks like it won’t deliver anything like what is needed.

If wealthy, influential, hard-working, pro-active, educated, motivated, articulate, ambitious parents send their children to state schools they will be very motivated to see standards in state schools improve. They will work to this goal by voting, by PTA involvement, by being on the board of governors, by political activity, both local and national. Because they won't tolerate under-perfoming schools for their children, while currently they do tolerate them for other people's children

You wouldn't even let poorer kids use a pitch for free? Mainly Victorian philanthropics would be aghast.

Well. You lost me, OP, sorry. Just because I cant afford private education for my child doesn’t mean I am not invested in her education. Get over yourself OP. What a thing to say. Comments like that honestly make me glad we can’t access private education because if we could, my child would be mixing with families with parents who say things like that.

Again, my friends who work in the private sector have EXACTLY the same behaviour issues as those in state. Kids are kids regardless of the money they come from. The private school teachers talk about an entitlement and easier access to cash that result in easier access to drugs and booze. This kids are backed up by their parents in the same irresponsible way as the state school kids. It is however easier for private schools to offload these kids.

I went to a Haberdashers school on a full scholarship - those won’t exist for anyone when VAT is charged.

We had lots of pupils whose parents were in the armed forces and this gave them stability, supported by the government.

I can promise you the school was not full of rich families, nor are the local independent schools where we live now.

My parents couldn't afford to pay for me to get out of a primary school in which I was regularly beaten and sexually-assaulted. Luckily, I aced the 11+ and got into a female-only grammar.

What would you do if you couldn't afford private for DS1? Or if DS2 was being beaten too?

The answer isn't private school. The answer is to bring back borstals for the violent children.

If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. They just have to do what everyone else who can't afford it does - find a good school within your budget. No one is entitled to a private education.

I feel like your passion would be better spent campaigning for increased funding for state schools. That would give more opportunity to a wider number of children and much more quickly.

You’re deluded if you think most people at private schools will struggle. As a PP has already said, some will. But the vast majority will not.

Sadly if you try and do private school on a shoestring, you’ll be at risk even without new policies like this - what about no pay rise one year but 8% increase in fees in the same year? That could be huge for some households, which is why I would never do it if I were scrimping and saving. Also, this is not a new policy, has been discussed for ages.

Ultimately, private schools are elitist even if you don’t want them to me. That makes them not accessible to the vast majority. And is why so many people are against them full stop.

They do literally the exact opposite that. They bring further inequality into the tax system bizarrely by adding an additional tax to the one subset of parents who use the least amount of state education resources at point of need.

Over half of even the highest earning households still use state schools. If the aim was to ensure tax was evenly paid by everyone then it nose people should have been taxed more.

An alternative type of education exists. But as I said, education of children in itself is seen as a public good no matter what type or provider. I suppose that's a philosophical argument as well as a practical argument. Once we start labelling education as a luxury we are really heading for the dark ages!

Returfing the ripped-up grass costs money.

YAWN I do understand, I just also know they schools themselves are profit making businesses who should pay more tax, sorry

I literally cannot imagine having a spare £20000 a year to spend on top of other life costs. If you can afford that you really are privileged whether you realise it or not.

Any family paying private school fees is nowhere near the average family in terms of finances. This is the attitude that annoys people.

Private school is for the very wealthy. It will continue to be for the very wealthy but the country will benefit from the tax. I'm fine with that.

Equally, independent schools can and do ask pupils to leave for whatever reason they want. It’s much harder to permanently exclude at state schools.

In an environment where free education exists, a paid-for education is a luxury. This isn't claiming that education isn't essential: it's claiming that paying for it is a luxury choice.

Bugger me what an offensive post. MOST parents really care about their child's education. But MOST people cannot afford a private school. Many people "break the bank" just to bloody feed and clothe their children!

You're screaming "poverty!" but have no idea whatsoever how most of us live. It's hard to have any sympathy at all when you make comments suggesting the average earner doesn't care about their child's education.

If wealthy, influential, hard-working, pro-active, educated, motivated, articulate, ambitious parents send their children to state schools they will be very motivated to see standards in state schools improve. They will work to this goal by voting, by PTA involvement, by being on the board of governors, by political activity, both local and national. Because they won't tolerate under-perfoming schools for their children, while currently they do tolerate them for other people's children

God, not this nonsense again. This gets wheeled out every time.

My DC are at private school; I work 60 hours a week to pay for this. If, for some reason they were not able to, and I had to send them to state school, they'd be in state school by day, and I'd get tutors to fill in the personal gaps once or twice a week. I would not be battering down the door of the head, or anyone else, to 'encourage' them to improve. What change would I be able to effect, in any case? Im sure headteachers of state schools have no interest in the interjections of clueless parents

The big difference with all the examples you give is that if you don’t make one of the purchases there isn’t a cost added to the taxpayer bill.

Any parent who decides not to use private schools immediately creates a financial burden for the state.

We should be trying to encourage more people to use private schools not fewer.

Are you saying kids who go to state aren’t getting a good education?

Bullying in State schools is rife because they can't permanently exclude. The problem is the State schools having their hands tied.

Exactly.

Interesting article Private schools 'as much to blame as Labour for middle-class exodus' (telegraph.co.uk) which is related. Parents who send their children to private school make a choice, if they can't afford it they can't afford it, if lots of parents withdraw their kids I would put money on the schools finding ways to absorb the increase to stem the loss.
As for 'just take a couple of holidays a year? Most families at the most local school to me don't go on holidays or if they do it's a week in a caravan somewhere, not 'a couple'. You are seriously out of touch.