Read this an tell me you still agree with VAT on school fees

[Sally20099]

DS is 3 years from finishing private school which includes 2 years in the sixth form. DD was due to start same senior school in Sept. Both went to private prep but due to talk of VAT on fees, and certainty of Labour govt for some time, we actually investigated sending DD to state secondary school. Only one in the entire city is rated outstanding but DD has got a place so we have decided to send her there. It’s very good academically but obviously hasn’t got the facilities of the private option. Currently school fees are £19,300 per year (before VAT) for DS so we have saved a reasonable sum by going to state school with DD. DS will finish at his school and we could afford DD fees (even with VAT) so we will instead put £12k a year extra in savings for DD and then spend the rest of the savings on an extra winter holiday. We would have never looked at state schools without the VAT policy and instead we have taken the place of someone at an outstanding rated school. Im not posting to annoy anyone, I wanted those who unequivocally support this to see some of the consequences. We also know a reasonable number of children in DS year who can’t afford fees with VAT and are taking their children out of private and going into state - and taking more places at the limited good schools. Its probably no surprise that most families in private schools happen to also live in good areas, meaning catchment areas tend to work out quite well when they go state.

“Stating that you’re leaving Twitter is completely unrelated to his reply to Dan Neidle.”

A lot of people left Twitter after Musk’s comments re Starmer, so he could also be a Starmer/Labour supporter. We don’t know. But if Dan Neidle openly professes to be a Labour Party member then he is not, not partisan. The laws are complex, there are different opinions out there. Those shouting loudest with big personalities favouring the flavour of the day are not necessarily right, that is all I am saying.
Brexit/Rwanda all these atypical policies were challenged. Many people are expecting this one to be challenged too. Certain aspects of the draft legislation are not consistent. They may amend them of course.

OK, so nothing other than saying two UK tax lawyers are possibly politically partisan (although no evidence at all for one, other than leaving Twitter, and the other is generally regarded as non-partisan in his tax analysis, otherwise you’d wonder why Clifford Chance made him the UK head of tax).

Righty ho.

During very short visits whether random or planned only a fool would expect to accurately assess a very complex social situation. Those who cling to OFSTED ratings in the belief that they accurately describe the quality of education on offer are naive. At the extremes, these things are relatively easy to measure but the vast majority of institutions do not fall at the extremes and for an evaluation to be meaningful it would need to be significantly more robust than at present.

During very short visits whether random or planned only a fool would expect to accurately assess a very complex social situation

Carl Sagan used to call this kind of of argument a straw man fallacy. Just because you say that " only a fool would expect" it doesn't mean you are right.
Another example: a pupil worked hard all the time but poorly passed GCSE. It doesn't mean that it matters, his grades are as they are.
The nature of ANY assesment, any exam is that is random. Even passing driving licence. Company ISO 9001 audits. Quoting you: Only a fool would not understand that this is how the assesments and exams work.
The lucky situation is that in case a school was downgraded, the school can apply for revisiting them within a year.

I assure you that in Ofsted are working very intelligent people and not fools. Renee Descartes once said: Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed.For everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.

Yeah, a nature of a human is to think they know the best.

I still agree with VAT on school fees and you know what - I think they should all be abolished.

And this on a day when my DD got a full brace of 9s from the 'worst school' in town. So there you go.

There are some intelligent people working in OFSTED and there are some blinkered arrogant and narrow minded people. The same can be said for many walks of life. That is not really relevant as at systemic level there is not the capacity in the inspection regime to accurately capture, understand and evaluate the quality of education and wider services provided by schools.

Sorry - totally quoted the wrong person!

Ha ha....made realise I should have said all public/private/independent schools should be abolished.....in case of misunderstanding!

@Newrumpus It is easy to relativize that some are wise some are stupid when you don't have an insider insight.Go and tell them how to set up proper school audits. Come on. What are you waiting for? It is easy to wave the saber having no idea even how the Ofsted process works and the idea you would come up with would be only reinventing the wheel as they have tested and run already all possible scenarios of audits.
It is easy to discredit a process but it is not easy to propose a viable improvements.

I do have insider insight! The work I do is more valuable.
I don’t wish to derail this thread into a debate about OFSTED. I merely pointed out that the OP was obsessed with outstanding and good ratings which are, on the whole, meaningless.

“OK, so nothing other than saying two UK tax lawyers are possibly politically partisan (although no evidence at all for one, other than leaving Twitter, and the other is generally regarded as non-partisan in his tax analysis, otherwise you’d wonder why Clifford Chance made him the UK head of tax).

Righty ho.”

@SabrinaThwaite - exactly what has Clifford Chance got to do with any of this? It is just a place Dan Neidle used to work at. Whatever he does or does not do now, is entirely separate. The informal advice provided online by Dan Neidle is not legal advice that anyone can properly rely and then sue him on, if he gets it wrong. So what exactly is the legal status of all these articles he publishes?

No, you don't have insider insight as nobody working in Ofsted would ne producing unproductive ans only derogatory comments and you have absolutely nothing to propose instead. Your insight may be from the disgruntled school. There is more to the Ofsted report than a grade. I would never relay only on that.

You are talking nonsense. I am OFSTED trained. Stop jumping to ignorant conclusions.

He's given his opinion on the ECHR claims. Nobody has said that has any legal status. I suspect that recently being UK head of tax at a magic circle firm lends him some gravitas - unless you know otherwise?

But then I'm not dismissing the (informal) opinions of tax lawyers based on them (a) being a Labour supporter or (b) saying that they're leaving Twitter.

You dont believe in parents having choice about education and that people should only have educational choices provided by the state?

No I don't because your choice negatively impacts the 93 percent who are state educated and have no interest in universally good education.

Private schools provide SOME parents with more choice of school. Abolishing them would still provide choice. It would just be more equal for everyone.

How does it negatively impact anyone?

Its quite possible for someone to pay for private education and be very interested in excellent state school provision. For instance Diane Abbott would make that argument. Would you say Labour party politicians who send their children to private schools dont believe in good education for others?

If I drive car does that mean I dont care about public transport - should cars be banned?

I think your argument is ridiculous.

No I don't think Abbott really cares about state education. And I think car drivers are selfish too. And I think your arguments are ridiculous!

Please explain how there is more choice when you abolish private schools? Do you mean choice by moving home? That is really expensive for most people, as are private schools.

In my opinion, there isn't much choice at the moment. Ideally there should be more academically selective schools (not just in the London/South East area), more schools with Arts or STEM focus - so parents have real choice depending on their kids strength.

My kid may be a math genius but unless I pay the stamp duty and moving costs or at least move within commuting distance - I am unlikely to get him into King's College Maths school is not a practical option for me.

More of a variety of state funded options and private options will result in most kids being able to access an environment they can thrive in

So I understand correctly you think car drivers are selfish and you apply the same logic to abolishing private schools.

Should certain types of houses be banned? Are large houses wrong?

@newmummycwharf1

Read my post again. I didn't say abolishing private schools would provide more choice.

I said that parents who have the ability to choose between a selection of private schools and state schools clearly have more choice than parents who can only choose between a selection of state schools.

Abolishing private schools would mean the amount of choice would be more equal.

You agree abolishing private schools reduces parental choice. You just dont want other people to have more choice than you?

But you don't work in Ofsted in school reviews team. Ofsted is training thousand and thousand of educators in UK. Obviously you understand the difference.