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.

It would have to be pretty bloody rural to be 30 miles. I grew up in the back end of Lincolnshire and our furthest pupil was 10 miles away.

OK then. You’re saying the only reason (insert name of seaside town) is deprived is the lack of a private school?

So conversely if we put a private school in, say. Clacton, all its problems would disappear?

So to give just one example - Kingussie High school - nearest alternatives Pilochry (46 miles) or Culloden (44 miles). One might think Glenurquart was closer, but you’d need a boat.

@Tiredalwaystired - there are superselective grammar schools in Colchester.
Essex, despite the Clapton cliche, is far from deprived as a whole. Nearby Frinton-on-Sea is privileged retiree central, for example.

@Araminta1003 I don't understand your remarks about socialism-could you say more ?

Yes but there’s a difference between a couple of examples and “pretty common”. I’m not saying they don’t exist but they’re hardly two a penny

Oh my god you really are Mrs obtuse aren’t you?

I gave one example just by sticking a virtual pin in a map. There are many, many, many more. I’m certainly not going to list them for you. You’ve made up your mind and aren’t interested in hearing anything that might be different.

You're completely missing her point. If a GP surgery is trying to hire a GP then unless there's a suitable school within commuting distance, they're limited to only GPs who don't have school age children. Because GPs, dentists etc generally value education for their children and do have choices about where to settle and work.

A grammar school is likely to be a suitable option - for secondary at least. So is a private school. If there's only a failing comp in a deprived community, then that community will struggle to get a new GP and dentist.

So although very few people living in the deprived area can afford to send their kids to the small private school, if this government policy causes that school to close down then their lives will still all be worse.

@felissamy has commented that she would like to get rid of private schools, then when asked admitted that she thinks large houses and cars are selfish too.

Proponents of this policy are clearly aiming to increase equality not by raising living standards of people on lower incomes, but by reducing living standards of those on higher incomes.

That's pretty shit politics of envy lacking in ambition, and not really in anyone's interests.

None of the GPs in my practise live within 20 miles of it. Their homes and children's schools are in different towns entirely to the surgery and they commute. Just saying.

Like I said, it needs to be within commuting distance.

When someone is choosing which job to take, commute does feed into the decision.

@strawberrybubblegum I find your logic hard to compute considered against the fact that so many GPs are left leaning. One would hope they wouldn't chose private or selective schools for their children due to their principles.

You clearly have no idea how state school admissions work. And as others have said some schools in the most deprived areas seriously out perform even the beat schools.

my friend - GP with 4 children who voted labour - has sent all her children to private school after state primary (youngest still at primary) her partner is a Dr too. and this is london.

@Ozanj "The catchments of the state schools in my area were relaxed a few years ago to allow students from less affluent areas in which resulted in a massive drop in Ofsted ratings as management and teaching styles needed to change to accept children of less engaged parents."

That's not how either catchments or Ofsted work...,

In the areas where the vast majority of the population live, areas of deprivation are well with commuting distance of affluent areas. So the argument about GPs is weak.

The majority of the population live in highly populated area, yes. London in particular has hugely different demographics in close proximity, and fantastic schools.

But not everyone lives in London and the SE.

That's why @Araminta1003 said
"The saddest part of this policy is that it will yet again affect the regions and the most deprived areas the worst."

and

"If I were an MP I would be demanding this policy is scrapped unless some actual real levelling up funding and SEN funding were coming my way."

She's really clear that she's talking about areas outside the SE and major population centres. And yet pp insultingly call her obtuse.

These areas are the ones with small private schools, which are most likely to close. Also, these are areas where the recent GCSE results have shown an increasing regional difference in attainment.

We hear time and again that this change affects such a small percentage of people, so who cares. Well it might be a small percentage of the population, but I think it's shitty to decide to sacrifice (or deliberately harm, for that matter) a small part of your population just because there are too few of them to be able to stand up for themselves. That's not how a civilised country behaves.

Well said @strawberrybubblegum

GPS are individuals. There are quite a few doctor parents - including GPs - at DD's school. Of the other GPs I know, some have their DC in private and some in state schools.

I'd suggest that even left-cleaning GPs will be balancing the social good they can achieve with their responsibilities towards their children. Just like every other parent.

I've never suggested that no doctors or dentists would be willing to work in areas without access to good schools. It only affects those with school-age children for a start. And individual parents have different ideas about their childrens' education. I've never met a doctor who isn't serious about their DC's education, but a small number may prioritise political views over school experience.

But it's not about absolutes. Substantially reducing the pool of possible candidates in some areas is still a negative consequence.

That's the thing that really annoys me about this policy. There's a raft of completely foreseeable negative consequences which completely subsume any positives.

And Labour are so arrogant and ideologically single-minded that they're ignoring that. My only hope is that when the negatives do come to pass, it will be picked up on and if they're bad enough the policy reversed. Just like the French wealth tax was reversed when it was shown to have cost the state far more than it raised.

Labour of course will still claim it was all completely unforeseeable. Who would imagine that people will make personal choices in the best interests of their families?!?

There are 364,000 doctors in the UK out of 37.5million people of working age. That's pretty much 1% of the working age population.

In DD's year at school, 7% of the parents are doctors, and another 2% medically trained but now working in other medical fields.

How does it work?

My GP lives on my street and sends her kids to a grammar about 45 minutes away. There may be cultural influences too as the grammar schools are popular with South Asian parents like my GP.

In my experience, professionals often choose selective schools because they hope for classmates with similar professional aspirations and connections. Being an immigrant also increases the pressure for their children to pass selective exams too and is often seen as a sign of success.

What? Your average private/grammar school is crammed to the rafters with the children of doctors, nurses and teachers. The latter two at least are often considered to be ‘left leaning’ (not sure that I agree with GPs being so). You can be left-leaning without being a die-hard socialist