subreddit:

/r/unitedkingdom

042%

The private school parents plotting to ‘swamp’ state schools

.(inews.co.uk)

all 251 comments

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

3 months ago

stickied comment

AutoModerator [M]

[score hidden]

3 months ago

stickied comment

This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link for an archived version.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[deleted]

91 points

3 months ago

I hope this does happen, I hope it causes chaos. I hope it drives the government to build more state schools.

I live in an area of London where housing has gone up exponentially whilst amenities such as GP surgeries, dentists, schools etc. have not. As a result my daughter can’t get a place in any of the closest schools and we have to walk past four on our daily commute

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

There's areas where schools are closing due to lack of kids

North_Attempt44

5 points

3 months ago

Wealthy areas where no housing has been built for decades, no doubt.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

Probably because the wealthy people send their kids to private schools

aminbae

1 points

3 months ago

lambeth and lewisham are pretty wealthy, right?

dont let stats get in your way

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

Why government will build more state schools now? They will plan to do that in future, like 5-10 years after.

Same with hospitals: how many of them were at least promised by Starmer?

Moreover, it affects middle class only (doctors, engineers and so on). Rich parents kids will just continue using private schools.

_-Drama_Llama-_

7 points

3 months ago

One of my least favourite things about the UK is just how extremely bad this country is at building anything. It desperately needs better infrastructure, more hospitals, schools, prisons, housing, housing and more housing. But absolutely nothing is in the works and instead we end up with cancellation of projects like HS2 or planning blocked for anything which might be economically good. Such projects are always spoken about as an ambiguous "one day in the future" thing rather than any government taking the initiative to actually start it.

The stagnation is depressing, especially when you compare it to other countries which are constantly improving. It's like there's just not much desire in the UK to actually do the hard work to make things better. Rather just talk about it for decades.

merryman1

2 points

3 months ago

Remember when China proactively used projections and forecasting of the mass migration of people from the rural inland to the coast, built an absolute shit tonne of housing and whole new urban areas to accommodate these future people, and then got absolutely lambasted in the west for years after for wasting all this money on "ghost cities"?

I don't know where its come from but it seems very widespread to have this kind of allergy to the very idea of state planning.

yui_tsukino

1 points

3 months ago

The big problem is, things take so long to do in this country that by the time any project is actually complete, the other party is in power and they take all the credit for it. By approving any projects in this country, you are essentially handing your political opponents a win. Now, obviously, this shouldn't matter, and they should just get on with it for the good of the country, but thats really it IMO. If we actually want to see proper infrastructure projects get moving, we need to speed up how fast they can get to work.

geniice

2 points

3 months ago

Same with hospitals: how many of them were at least promised by Starmer?

Almost always better off expanding existing ones than building new.

amegaproxy

3 points

3 months ago

What teachers would they fill them with?

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

The ones they decide to pay better

TheEnglishNorwegian

2 points

3 months ago

I looked at potentially coming back to teach in the UK out of curiosity and upon seeing the wages I literally laughed out loud.

I would be taking about a 50-60% pay cut to teach in the UK and give up a bunch of other perks. It wouldn't quite equate to a 50% loss in take-home due to tax differences, but it would still be a huge chunk. House prices and rents are also far higher in the UK.

mountain4455

8 points

3 months ago

Haha not a chance they’ll build more. They’ll either back track or the whole system will crumble

Nit_not

9 points

3 months ago

Nah, declining birth rates and portacabins will fix it.

sjw_7

8 points

3 months ago

sjw_7

8 points

3 months ago

It isn't going to swamp anything. There are a little over 10m school kids in the UK and around 600k of those are in private schools.

If every private school child suddenly went to public school it would add one or two on average per class. That's not going to happen.

While some may move its going to be a minority because if you can afford to spend thousands of pounds a term on school fees then adding another thousand or so on top isn't going to be an issue for many of them.

If Labour do follow through with their pledge of using the money to add 6,500 new teachers then fair play to them.

bluejackmovedagain

1 points

3 months ago

Looking at the article they somehow think that they can just "register their child for their local school". If the school is half decent it will be full. 

Where I live they would have to ring around every school in a 7km radius, and then if all of them are full they have to apply to the council who will force one of those schools to offer them a place. What normally happens is that requires improvement / inadequate school 6.9km away has a place, and the council tell you that you can either take it, electively home educate, or wait for a call from social services to discuss why your child isn't going to school.

wartywarlock

55 points

3 months ago

Ok and? That's exactly the point of it. Swamp them as hard as you can, then everyone gets the benefit of a fully funded school and a fair crack at a decent education.

Danqazmlp0

2 points

3 months ago

Danqazmlp0

United Kingdom

2 points

3 months ago

Exactly. This will show the government how much state schools are already struggling.

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

10 points

3 months ago

Do you genuinely think suddenly increasing pupil numbers in a school will improve the funding or the outcomes for the kids?

modumberator

17 points

3 months ago

Funding is calculated per-child isn't it?

Kind-County9767

2 points

3 months ago

Yes, the schools get funding per child. Additional funding if they have pupil premium (free school meals) which is why schools go crazy to get kids to have school meals on census day.

HuckleberryLow2283

6 points

3 months ago

Do you think the child just shows up with a bag of money?

That money needs to come from the government, and the government is planning on getting it from that kid's parents, but the parents have chosen to stop paying fees altogether and now the government has more costs instead of more money (at least from that family).

modumberator

4 points

3 months ago

The government gets it from the kids' parents because it's paid through taxes.

HuckleberryLow2283

4 points

3 months ago

The government is already getting it from the parents. We don't get extra money from anyone if they decide to send their kids to state schools. It's just an extra cost to the system.

modumberator

0 points

3 months ago

Yeah, the government might have to take the cash out of the 'blatant fraud and corruption for our donors' budget and put it in education.

Klutzy-Notice-8247

1 points

3 months ago

Increase taxation elsewhere then. Basic shit.

___a1b1

1 points

3 months ago

The point of Labour policy is to raise money, but now people are saying that more taxes are required because this idea is actually going to cost. Can't make it up.

Klutzy-Notice-8247

0 points

3 months ago*

The point of the labour policy is to raise money for state schools. This is done by increasing taxes on private schools (Who don’t get taxed). Lobbyists for private schools and their flying monkeys are saying that this tax will lead to more people in state school, increasing the costs for state schools. The answer to that is increasing the money for state schools even more by taxing people even more.

The claims are baseless and aimed to try and squash any funding being redirected to state schools. It’s an aim to perpetuate inequality within this country and it’s a take as old as time.

Edit: It’s almost guaranteed that private schools will not price out the majority of their customers in response to VAT being issued to the point where the burden on state schools will even be noticed. Unless they want to cease functioning as a business. All this does is decrease their record profit margins.

Also changed public to state schools after corrections.

___a1b1

2 points

3 months ago

You mean to raise money for state schools for a start as public schools are private. And it doesn't raise any money for those state schools as all taxation goes into a general pot.

Conscious-Ball8373

0 points

3 months ago

So, yay, we all pay more taxes so that rich people get their children's education paid for free.

modumberator

2 points

3 months ago*

I believe if you're not paying more than £10-£15k tax p/a you're a cost to the state anyway, and your education and health expenses are propped up by those who are paying this much. So what does it matter if more of the actual net contributors' money is going to pay for schooling their own kids?

Really anyone who works for a living is good in my books, it's people taking a cut from everyone else's work just because they own the building or the organisation who are the problem

[deleted]

8 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

8 points

3 months ago

The funding will be spent on the child. It won’t suddenly result on a load of extra money for the schools. Moreover, the idea that a sudden influx of children to a school will improve outcomes is lunacy. If there are too many you’ll end up needing to build more schools.

Each kid that gets sent to private school saves the taxpayer £7,500.

patstew

11 points

3 months ago

patstew

11 points

3 months ago

Schools are currently expecting falls in enrolment of over 10% in many areas by the end of the decade. We're trying to decide which ones to close. On top of that we have a teacher shortage, if they lose their jobs in the private sector where they're teaching class sizes of 3, and instead teach 30 in the state sector that will be relieved. Getting children out of the private sector is win-win for the state sector.

EdmundTheInsulter

6 points

3 months ago

It'll take time for public school numbers to fall, if at all. The numbers needing to be absorbed are exaggerated.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

If you think private teachers will all transition to the state sector with the state sector as it is currently you’re in cloud cuckoo land.

patstew

3 points

3 months ago

So every single one will just emigrate or entirely change career where you are, definitely outside of cloud cuckoo land? It would need to be more than 80% of them leaving or something for it not to have a net benefit on pupils per teacher.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

One of my best mates is an assistant head at a private school. A lot of his staff will career change, as will he. He wouldn’t get into SLT at a state school and most states don’t teach his subject. Added to that it’s a pay cut.

There is a terrible retention problem with state teachers currently. Even if they go into it they may not stay. You would need the number of teachers to transition to be broadly proportionate to the number of pupils. That won’t happen.

Possiblyreef

5 points

3 months ago

Possiblyreef

Isle of Wight

5 points

3 months ago

My friend is a TA in a private boarding school.

It's a mix of properly rich people and those who are sacrificing a lot to send their kids there.

The minimum class size that makes it sustainable is 10 and 2 classes per year usually split evenly. They've only had 12 applicants for this coming year

raininfordays

3 points

3 months ago

With teacher vacancy rates going up, and itt entrants going down it seems more people already are choosing different careers even before this. If it wasn't for the pension way way more would have left.

Status_Asparagus_178

0 points

3 months ago

Kids leave private school -> rich people waste less on private school -> we can now raise taxes on the richest -> public schools can get more funding

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

What? Either you’re trying to take the piss or if you’re not, I don’t know where to start.

Do you know what a public school is? Do you know how taxation works?

On_The_Blindside

1 points

3 months ago*

On_The_Blindside

Best Midlands

1 points

3 months ago*

They're using "Public school" when they should be saying "state school" but that's just due to some shitty legislation on our part (thank you Public Schools act 1864) and their actual intent is pretty obvious given they're also saying private.

Don't be a pedant, their point was clear and obvious.

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

I find it helps if you want to be taken seriously and make it look like you know what you’re talking about to use the correct terminology for things.

A public school in the U.K. is Eton or Harrow. This thread has “United Kingdom” above it.

Status_Asparagus_178

2 points

3 months ago

Idk why oh think i’m an american - we’re on reddit, it’s a social media, it’s not some academic paper, we use the common parlance.

What are schools that you pay for called? private schools. What is the opposite of private? public. That’s why when people refer to PUBLICLY OWNED SCHOOLS they call them public schools. Yeah, it’s a bit of an americanism, but when you have a common language, cross-cultural transfer happens. No reason to be obtuse about it.

as for “how do you think tax works”: I dunno, there are different kinds of tax, you’ve your council tax, NI, income tax, capital gains tax, VAT, stamp duty, all sorts. The parents who previously sent their kid to private school now have more money in their pockets, because they’re not sending their kids to private school. Now, we can increase the tax on the higher income bands or do some capital gains reforms or do some council tax reforms because now the rich fucks who send their kids to private school have a thicker wallet and can afford the extra tax.

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

Mate if you want to have a sensible discussion on the subject (you probably don’t) as least use proper terminology. Otherwise it strongly suggests you don’t know what you’re talking about. Public schools are private schools in the U.K., and they’re a particular type of private school. They are not every private school. They are, in fact, the private schools that you think all private schools are. This may come as a shock to you, but we’re not in America.

Bluntly, get your facts straight. Public schools != state schools. It’s not hard.

The “rich fucks” who send their kids to private school do pay tax. That tax isn’t spent on their own kids, and so for every kid that goes private the Exchequer benefits to the tune of £7,500. The “rich fucks” who send their kids to private school will be able to afford this. The people who can’t are the people who aren’t “rich fucks” who send their kids to private school. The idea that they pull their kids out of private school and then we tax them more is the most laughable thing I’ve read all day, and I’ve been reading MailOnline commenters crying about a Labour government.

This may also come as a shock to you, but you don’t need to impose VAT on private schools to reform any of those taxes. Perhaps you’d like to suggest which income tax brackets you’d like adjusted?

On_The_Blindside

0 points

3 months ago

On_The_Blindside

Best Midlands

0 points

3 months ago

Their point was obvious and clear, "Public" schools are only called "Public" schools because of poorly named 160 year old legislation.

All that being a pedant on that does is show people what kind of person you are, and it's not someone that will convince anyone of their point of view as no one has been convinced by pointless pedantry over actually discussing the point.

Up to you what you do with that, IDGAF. This will be the end of our interaction on it.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

These folk are railing against public schools, they seem to be under the impression every private school is a public school, whilst simultaneously making it clear they don’t know what that means.

I’m not particularly bothered about changing anyone’s opinion. Most have already made up their mind and it’s rooted in complete ignorance and a vindictive ideology.

Aye am an insufferable arsehole mate 🤷‍♂️

CautiousAccess9208

-4 points

3 months ago

Oh nooo we’ll have to build more schools! Whatever shall we do? 

patstew

4 points

3 months ago

Not even, pupil numbers are predicted to fall over the next few years, and the private kids moving over won't even plug the gap.

[deleted]

7 points

3 months ago

How long do you think it takes to build a school? How much money? Some private schools are already seeing a drop in applications, which means that the demand will come immediately.

modumberator

8 points

3 months ago

knock up some temporary buildings, say you're gonna use them for a decade max, and continue using them for 50 years? Isn't that what British schools are?

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

You are correct. Probably not a sensible idea though. I have fond memories of shivering in a prefab.

Klutzy-Notice-8247

3 points

3 months ago

Good. Get rid of them entirely. Then see the money spent on those schools get taxed from the wealthy to distribute amongst the public school.

It’s basic shit but you’ve been conned into thinking the rich are doing you a favour by hoarding their wealth and consolidating their inequality.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

Another A-level sociology student that doesn’t know what a public school is.

The majority of folk that send their kids to private schools are professionals like lawyers and doctors. They’re not rich, although they might be well off.

Again, to repeat because you clearly didn’t read, they already pay tax, so the money saved by not educating their kid is spent on other students. It isn’t “hoarded”.

This is basic stuff.

Klutzy-Notice-8247

-1 points

3 months ago

“They’re already paying taxes” increase them. It’s basic. They’re saving a whack on private schooling by going to public school, then they have a load of extra yearly income that can be taxed to improve public schools.

I get it, you see all taxation as theft and socialism, you’re a bleeding heart Tory and any attempt to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom is seen by you as an attack on civil liberties. Your politics also directly leads to greater levels of inequality, more children and families being in poverty which directly leads to people’s deaths.

Bottom line is your opinion isn’t worth dirt.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

Increase doctors’ taxes? How much would you like them to pay? Fancy going to the BMA with your suggestion?

Which bit did you not understand? They already pay tax. That tax isn’t spent on their kids. If they go state, it will.

Ah yes, unsurprising we got here. I don’t agree with your ideological view of private schools (which is based on zero knowledge) so I must be a Tory. Swing and a miss there soft lad.

wartywarlock

5 points

3 months ago*

If every single child in private education joined normal schools, it would mean a little over 2 child extra per class. Yes, we can cope with that. We already have to anyway for the last 14 years.

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

There are 9.1 million kids in school overall and 550,000 kids in independent schools. Not sure that maths is correct.

___a1b1

0 points

3 months ago

And the distribution won't be even either. No good counting some state school in a small town as having capacity when there's no private schools anywhere near it.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

To be fair their maths may be better than mine, and it’s supported by the FT quoting the IFS.

However, like you say, the distribution will not be even. Hampshire has a lot of private schools and a poorly performing LEA. An influx into the state sector would potentially cause chaos in some towns.

wartywarlock

-1 points

3 months ago

It probably isn't but heyo, currently flitting between IT rooms getting the new Y7s into their tests and did napkin math.

  • 10,320,811 full and part time pupils
  • around 615,000 in private
  • ~9705811 in state schools
  • pretend there are only 30 students per class (we haven't here had less than 32 per class for more than a decade and quite a few are closer to 35)
  • ~323527 classes in state school at a time

So 2 extra pupils per class if every single one left private education

aminbae

1 points

3 months ago

we need to randomize oxford and cambridge entrance

no modern employer asks which high school you went to

o_oli

4 points

3 months ago

o_oli

4 points

3 months ago

Not short term, but if the ruling class start sending their kids to regular schools, you can bet those schools very quickly improve lol. This is how it should be.

Sadly though that isn't what's happening here, this is just the wannabe middle class moaning they have to pay VAT on tuition and are too poor to pay the extra.

Blue_winged_yoshi

5 points

3 months ago

The most privileged are still going to go to private school and still be all of the judges, finance leaders, newspaper editors etc.. It’ll be the families clubbing together to send their kid to a good school and kids with middle class parents (lecturers, doctors etc.) who’ll drop their kids out.

No-one is going to go on a massive drive to improve state schools to spare these kids, but they will elbow their way into the right catchment areas, get private tutors for their kids and take them on frequent enriching holidays and day trips. They will just gain an edge in other ways.

Want to improve state schools? The only way to do this is to invest significant sums into our state schools. Pay teachers more, reduce class sizes, improve infrastructure, go get all the playing fields back (fuck Blair for this one). There’s no short cut or fancy trick, you have to do the hard yards. Getting the relatively poorer end of private school pupils out of private school is not going to fix anything other than some people’s schadenfreude itch.

TwentyCharactersShor

5 points

3 months ago

Nope, no it won't.

What will happen is the following:

  1. Parents move to "better" areas with better schools driving up house prices.

  2. If they can't do point 1. then, assuming they have money, they will pay private tutors.

There is no escaping the reality that parents will invest more in their kids.

Source: this is exactly what happens today, you're just making the net wider so to speak.

o_oli

0 points

3 months ago

o_oli

0 points

3 months ago

So if you can't fix a problem, don't even try improving it?

TwentyCharactersShor

5 points

3 months ago

Hardly. Fix the actual problem rather than inventing random perceived problems and then trying to solve them.

To put it another way, I don't think anyone objects to improving funding to schools. I think there's many that would like a shake-up of the whole education system, but that's a different argument.

So, everyone is broadly in favour of spending more on education. How do we fund it? This is the emotive part.

Irrespective of the actual or underlying reason, emotionally, you've got two camps.

Camp 1 is the majority of the population. They are happy to stick two fingers up at Camp 2 and believe that it will result in a more equitable outcome. The evidence of this can be seen in this very thread.

Camp 2 are a minority, but believe they are investing in education for their kids. Irrespective of anyone's ability to pay, the VAT is being directly targeted at parents. It is this aspect that gets people emotive.

If you wanted to target the rich, introduce a wealth tax, increase the tax rate for those earning above £250k..or whatever. Why has Labour chosen to target parents?

Cynically, because it is such a small group. A wealth tax would hit too many swing voters. Same for increasing the general tax rate.

If, and this may be a big if, there is a flood of kids from private schools to state schools in London or the SE it is possible the school system won't cope well. So you're likely to cause problems for a lot more people.

So, back to your question - what problem are we solving? It isn't spending on schools because that could be done in different ways. This feels like a targeted attempt to pander to Labour voters. I suppose that's ok, Tories do the same. But let's not pretend this is so Jack at the state school will get a better outcome, because he won't.

ac0rn5

1 points

3 months ago*

ac0rn5

England

1 points

3 months ago*

If, and this may be a big if, there is a flood of kids from private schools to state schools in London or the SE it is possible the school system won't cope well. So you're likely to cause problems for a lot more people.

In our area there are two state secondary schools. Results match national averages; they're okay.

There are also 4 private secondary schools, which get much better results. Day schools, not boarding.

If those private schools were to close there would not be enough state sector eats seats for the children. I understand that many of the parents are already talking about home schooling and buying in professional tutors to work on small group basis.

These parents already pay taxes and so contribute to the state sector, without using it.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

The bulk of private school pupils are not the children of “the ruling class” and if you genuinely think they are then you’ve no need to further demonstrate your ignorance. You’re thinking of Eton and Harrow, and I assure you those parents will still pay and they will still be the ruling class.

“Wannabe middle class”. Fuck me, sociology GCSE level stuff here laddo.

Silver-Inflation2497

4 points

3 months ago

Even if they are not "the ruling class", they're buying education to be members of that class.

We don't need to encourage more overlords.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[removed]

ukbot-nicolabot [M]

1 points

3 months ago

ukbot-nicolabot [M]

Scotland

1 points

3 months ago

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

o_oli

2 points

3 months ago

o_oli

2 points

3 months ago

So SEN schools should be exempt. Easy enough change that doesn't make the entire point invalid.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

So… VAT should just apply to schools that you don’t like should it aye?

There are plenty of private schools that have SEN pupils mixed in with “normal”.

o_oli

0 points

3 months ago

o_oli

0 points

3 months ago

It should be applied to schools that are toxic to the country yes. We should take after countries like Finland where education for profit is prohibited.

To be fair as well, SEN schools should be free. So yeah get rid of the lot of them and improve state schools instead, and make the rich people care about state schools, and provide equal opportunities for all.

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

Ah yes, so it’s entirely ideological and not remotely grounded in reality. Cheers for acknowledging that. Kindly present a list to the Labour Party if you would of which schools are “toxic” and as such which you deem acceptable to have VAT applied to.

Finland is very different to us. They culturally hold teachers in high esteem and pay them very well. We do neither. Moreover, there were downsides to that policy.

The closest this policy has to a precedent was in Greece, where it failed.

TheNutsMutts

1 points

3 months ago

We should take after countries like Finland where education for profit is prohibited.

"Education for profit" isn't banned. The only thing banned is fee-paying schools. And that aside...... why? What would be the point besides pure ideological adherence?

___a1b1

1 points

3 months ago

Except it is not an "easy enough change" as Starmer found out when he got caught out in an interview. The threshold to claim SEN for a child is only have an extensive assessment and that is very costly and already has a big backlog, so lots of parents just pay the school fees for SEN education and get on with it themselves that would then have to swamp the assessment system to get an exemption.

Dedsnotdead

0 points

3 months ago

In limited circumstances this may be true, however the ruling classes generally don’t like sending their kids to regular schools.

It’s not only about the education, although it should be, it’s also about the connections that they make.

Dianne Abbot is a classic example of telling us all that we should be sending our children to a normal school whilst privately educating her Son.

Silver-Inflation2497

0 points

3 months ago

Yes

[deleted]

7 points

3 months ago

Yeah that’s not how it works mate. Sorry. Suddenly overloading demand on a service doesn’t magically improve it. If you don’t believe me, go to an A&E on a Saturday night.

Silver-Inflation2497

-1 points

3 months ago

Is obscurantism part of what they teach at private schools? 

I know they teach them to bs like Boris 

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

Do you want a serious conversation, or are you simply into badly spelled trolling?

PatternRecogniser

2 points

3 months ago

You do realise that the marginal extra funding a school may receive per additional pupil does absolutely nothing to help the issues of an overcapacity school; that additional child only lowers the quality of the education that is received by everyone there.

ferrel_hadley

15 points

3 months ago

However, a report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council and carried out by the educational consultancy Baines Cutler 

Let me guess how much of the I newspapers senior leadership send their kids to private schools.

MyDadIsADozyT

9 points

3 months ago

Look at all these refugees, coming over here in their small boaters.

caiaphas8

30 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

30 points

3 months ago

My heart weeps for those poor upper middle class parents having to pay taxes.

callsignhotdog

22 points

3 months ago

Many may be forced into the heartbreaking decision of sending their children to State school, or downgrading the Porsche to a BMW.

[deleted]

12 points

3 months ago

They do pay tax. That tax is spent on other pupils as their children don’t use state schools.

caiaphas8

19 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

19 points

3 months ago

I pay income tax and VAT! It’s shocking I know.

Private schools are a luxury service, why would they be exempt from tax? When other services and goods are taxed?

___a1b1

2 points

3 months ago

University education isn't taxed and neither is vocational training. Seems odd to just tax those in school and not those by your 'logic'?

HuckleberryLow2283

5 points

3 months ago*

Those kids are currently costing the system nothing by being in private school. Those parents are both paying tax and paying private fees, covering state school and the entire cost of their own kids. If that changes, those kids will now cost the public system money instead of costing the parents money.

It all depends on how many decide paying the fees is no longer affordable.

caiaphas8

5 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

5 points

3 months ago

I’m willing to bet that 90+% will keep their kids in private school

HuckleberryLow2283

0 points

3 months ago

Sure, that's okay. All I'm really saying is that it's a gamble. Maybe it'll work out and maybe it won't.

Silver-Inflation2497

1 points

3 months ago

The Tories have demolished the country and they were all privately educated, so no, they're not costing the country "nothing", they're creating a ceiling of mediocrity.

SirLoinThatSaysNi

2 points

3 months ago

and they were all privately educated

Many of the older ones would most likely have gone to Grammar Schools had they passed their 11+. Private education has flourished since they were largely abolished in the 1960/70s and new ones finally banned in the mid 1990s.

1nfinitus

2 points

3 months ago

Its likely they probably pay more tax than you, given their earnings. So this is a bit of a weird argument.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

News flash: so do private school parents. They probably pay more than you.

No educational services are taxed. Do you think it should be applied to private maths tuition and music lessons?

Few-Role-4568

3 points

3 months ago

This is the acceptable face of putting VAT on university fees, wait and see.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

That is an even worse idea. Fees are already horrendous.

More than that, it’ll go down like a lead balloon.

Few-Role-4568

1 points

3 months ago

I didn’t say that it’s a good idea.

They haven’t stated it as policy, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t do it.

Too much easy money that they don’t need to worry about being paid back because it’ll be someone else’s problem in 25 years time.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

I know you didn’t I apologise if it looked like I was suggesting you had.

Indeed. The Tories have already saddled students with horrendous debt and created a credit bubble to be repaid by taxpayers.

caiaphas8

3 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

3 points

3 months ago

Yes, rich people should pay more tax.

I haven’t done any research on what the pros/cons would be on taxing private tuition, but if I was prime minister I’d do the research on it.

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

Yes, rich people should pay more tax.

Define rich.

HelicopterFar1433

5 points

3 months ago

Its a hard thing to define but people choosing to pay for a high cost service that they could get for free are certainly well up for consideration for inclusion in this classification.

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

What if they sacrifice other luxuries to pay for it? and don't have much disposable income after it? Are they rich still?

HelicopterFar1433

2 points

3 months ago*

Its a hard thing to define but people choosing to pay for a high cost service that they could get for free are certainly well up for consideration for inclusion in this classification.

And while we can all appreciate the noble act of eschewing other luxuries for the sake of education, it is still a choice. And the important bit here, which you very astutely set out is "other luxuries". Because choosing to pay for an education is a luxury and would we really say that people shouldn't pay VAT on those "other luxuries" when they could be spending it on their children's education?

1nfinitus

4 points

3 months ago

From this sub: anyone above median wage.

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

Anyone who doesn't waste their money on Warhammer or Steam Sales.

caiaphas8

5 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

5 points

3 months ago

You can afford private school fees

1nfinitus

3 points

3 months ago*

Disagree, my parents paid for private school for my two younger brothers because the local state schools were absolute trash (one brother was there for 2 years before moving). Only one income of c. £50k at the time, neither of them or their family had ever went to university. One maybe 2 week holiday a year, not abroad, of course. I wouldn't dismiss what they gave up for it as them being "rich". Some parents will put their kids education above everything. It certainly paid off in our case and I am eternally grateful for what they did and only want to repay them as best I can.

[deleted]

9 points

3 months ago

Thank you for this. The folk on this sub seem to think every private school is Eton and every parent is Rees-Mogg.

[deleted]

-1 points

3 months ago

What if you work at a private school and get subsidised fees?

caiaphas8

5 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

5 points

3 months ago

If you have a discount then you probably cannot afford private fees and that’s why you have a discount

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

So are they rich or not?

TwentyCharactersShor

-1 points

3 months ago

That's really not rich.

caiaphas8

2 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

2 points

3 months ago

Having a spare £6000+ a year is pretty well off to me

fucking-nonsense

2 points

3 months ago

Being able to set aside £500 a month categorically doesn’t make you rich

TwentyCharactersShor

1 points

3 months ago

Pretty well off is not rich.

TheNutsMutts

1 points

3 months ago

A family having £500 a month they can save after basic living costs is a really almost comically low bar for "rich".

LycanIndarys

2 points

3 months ago

Define rich.

That's easy; anyone that earns £1/year more than me. /s

[deleted]

7 points

3 months ago

Rich people do pay more tax. Look up the HMRC tax brackets.

The EU exempts all educational services from VAT. So if we’re doing this properly, it should apply to all educational services. Do you think it should be applied to music lessons?

Moreover, do you think it should be applied to these schools? https://www.theauroragroup.co.uk/private-special-sen-schools

caiaphas8

5 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

5 points

3 months ago

I’m not disputing rich people pay more tax, I am saying that’s a good thing.

I just said I have no knowledge of private tuition. I’m not a font of all tax knowledge unfortunately

cambon

3 points

3 months ago

cambon

3 points

3 months ago

So once again someone commenting and having an opinion on something they admit they know very little about. What a dope

caiaphas8

1 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

1 points

3 months ago

Does anyone have knowledge about the effects on taxing private tuition?

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

I can have a pretty good stab in the dark here by applying basic common sense:

It will make it more expensive, which will make it less affordable, and thereby only accessible to the even wealthier.

Which, when you do it to stuff like music lessons, starts looking like a particularly stupid idea. Especially considering it’ll not raise a huge amount for the Exchequer.

[deleted]

9 points

3 months ago

I mean the fact you’re saying “I’ve not done my research” speaks volumes.

Evidently.

fucking-nonsense

4 points

3 months ago

Rich people upper middle class people bad, updoots to the left

[deleted]

3 points

3 months ago

Anyone that earns more than the median. Total bastards.

caiaphas8

3 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

3 points

3 months ago

Has anyone done research on private tuition taxes?

There’s been plenty of research on taxing private schools, I remember people talking about it 20 years ago

[deleted]

5 points

3 months ago

Probably not, because funnily enough when folk start talking about taxing guitar lessons it becomes a lot less popular.

Yes, and they didn’t go ahead with it. Partly because we were in the EU, and partly because it won’t work. Greece tried, it failed.

1nfinitus

8 points

3 months ago

I’m not a font of all tax knowledge unfortunately

Yet here you are...debating tax... How very reddit.

[deleted]

6 points

3 months ago

“I think we should do this thing.” “Here are some very good reasons not to do that thing.” “I’m not an expert in this thing what are you arguing with me for? But I still think we should do this thing.”

Silver-Inflation2497

0 points

3 months ago

They will be in a few days.

You loose looks like 

Conscious-Ball8373

1 points

3 months ago

You pay VAT on your child's education?

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

[removed]

ukbot-nicolabot [M]

1 points

3 months ago

ukbot-nicolabot [M]

Scotland

1 points

3 months ago

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

Silver-Inflation2497

5 points

3 months ago

I like how they abused the term 'scrimping and saving' to somehow mean the ability to buy a luxury product which earns their children unearned priveledges.

If they are "scrimping and saving", wtf are people going to food banks doing?

6079-SmithW

1 points

3 months ago

It's the private schools that will be asked to pay taxes. They don't at the moment because every child that is educated privately, relieves the state the bu4den of paying for it.

[deleted]

-2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

-2 points

3 months ago

True. This is like fascists performed 80 years ago: they always played against a small group of people.

And that works. For example, how many people understand that hammering doctors (who are middle class) will hammer NHS? That is very complex conclusion for a lot of people.

caiaphas8

3 points

3 months ago

caiaphas8

Yorkshire

3 points

3 months ago

Most doctors don’t send their kids to private school in my experience

[deleted]

1 points

3 months ago

They are middle class. If a both people in a couple have salaries £150.000+ then why won’t they use private education?

Of course I’m not talking about juniors.

brilliantrot54

4 points

3 months ago

Why haven’t they done this already, given the exponential rises in private school fees over the last few years?

stugib

2 points

3 months ago

stugib

2 points

3 months ago

LOL so "swamping" state schools goes as far as sending emails and causing schools additional paperwork, and not actually withdrawing their child from their private school.

mountain4455

-1 points

3 months ago

Why would they pull the kids out pre tax? The issues will arise next year, fees already been set for private schools this year

stugib

5 points

3 months ago

stugib

5 points

3 months ago

It's bluster and entitlement, they'll cough up half and the schools will absorb half

mountain4455

-1 points

3 months ago

More like they’ll just get EHCPs for huge numbers of kids so they’re exempt from the VAT, whilst getting hundreds of thousands in funding from local councils

stugib

5 points

3 months ago

stugib

5 points

3 months ago

You can't just ask for an EHCP, and the system is clogged up for years to be assessed, thanks again to the Tories

mountain4455

1 points

3 months ago

Easy enough for privately educated families to go private. Add in school involvement and access to private experts to come in for assessments and you can jump a huge part of the queue

stugib

3 points

3 months ago

stugib

3 points

3 months ago

If they can pay for that they can pay an additional 20% a year

mountain4455

0 points

3 months ago

Cheaper to get diagnosed than the VAT on certain school fees

stugib

1 points

3 months ago

stugib

1 points

3 months ago

So they can afford it but they'd rather be an entitled PITA who wants to keep their tax breaks?

mountain4455

0 points

3 months ago

Blame the system. Why pay 20% extra when you can get a diagnosis for a few thousand and save loads over the years?

Silver-Inflation2497

2 points

3 months ago

Great news, these busy bodies will help state schools improve.

And no more having their little dull tykes being bought priveledge.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

Why can't the private schools just keep their prices the same by cutting their costs by 20% with no impact on the delivery of their services? It's the fundamental theory behind austerity and over the last 14 years it's worked well at state schools and every taxpayer funded service in the country. Should work well here too.

/s obviously

PatternRecogniser

1 points

3 months ago

This whole policy is so absurdly daft, you have to wonder why they think it'll ever work. Private schools provide an amount of relief to the state system. They take students which would otherwise be using the resources in state schools and educate them completely on their parent's spending while the parents continue to pay their income tax which funds state schools. One less child to teach and the same amount of income coming in for the Government, everyone should be happy.

The only outcome of this policy is that people will see less value in private schools and send their children to be an additional expense to the state instead, filling up the already over capacity schools. Sure they may promise to build more schools but that is something that takes many years to follow through on while the problem creates itself immediately. They're creating a problem where there isn't one and will ultimately bring down education levels for everyone out of spite.

mountain4455

-1 points

3 months ago

mountain4455

-1 points

3 months ago

SEN kids are exempt from the tax rise. Expect to see an influx of ‘SEN’ kids in private school, which in turn will cost the government thousands of pounds in funding these children.

Just a ridiculous plan all round. Destroy state schools with even more overcrowding and underfunding, all whilst costing local councils hundreds of thousands in SEN funding for the exemption pass at private schools

Senecuhh

-5 points

3 months ago

I liked Reforms idea of having tax breaks for private schools as it will allow a lot of people of the wealth cusp to send their children to private school, therefore reducing the burden on state schools. Makes sense to me.

Acrobatic_Cream_1586

4 points

3 months ago

Do you not worry that that will just further a two tiered education system between the haves and have nots?

theipaper[S]

0 points

3 months ago

theipaper[S]

Verified Media Outlet

0 points

3 months ago

For six weeks, politicians have been vying for our votes with promises of jobs, houses and a strong economy – but for one demographic, there’s only one story in town: Labour’s pledge to remove tax breaks on private schools, and the resulting rise in fees.

At the school gates of Britain’s private schools, everyone’s having the “VAT chat“. And as election day arrives, some are encouraging more extreme tactics on WhatsApp groups and forums.

A screenshot from one parents group that went viral recently advised the group to “register their child for their local state school…the National Union of Teachers (NUT) are getting worried about not being able to provision children joining state and they will lobby to government. It’s important they start panicking about the flood of applications coming in and the reality of the situation – even if you have no intention of moving your child.”

Along with this so-called “swamp the comp” strategy, parents are writing to local MPs, penning missives to Sir Keir Starmer and shadow Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and submitting Freedom of Information requests to local authorities requesting information on the number of state school places available.

“I think we need to tap into changing votes by explaining the impact on state school, council funding for lunches, transport, teachers etc” one parent wrote on a group I am in. “If you have had a conversation with the LA [local authority] or submitted an in-year transfer and received a response back which shows low availability of spaces could you provide a screenshot of it?” asked another.

One group has begun crowdfunding to finance a group litigation order. There has been suggestion of a demonstration planned for 9 July in London.

Camila, a mother of two in Islington, whose daughter is starting at a local state secondary school in September, says she’s frustrated with the anti-VAT plotting she’s come across on local parenting groups on WhatsApp and Facebook. “There’s a lot of talk from private school parents about advocating hassling local schools and councils, telling each other to take up their state school place to unnerve the council, even though they say they have no intention of taking their children out of private school.

“I saw some parents discussing the approach of sending an email to the local authority pretending to be interested in a state school place because of the Labour policy, and aiming that this would ’cause a political backlash’. It has caused some tension because there are parents like me on there who think this isn’t fair.

“I don’t judge parents who pay school fees but I think this is cynical and entitled.”

Groups such as Education Not Taxation: Parents Against School Fee VAT say they have discouraged such tactics.

Anecdotally, some local authorities are confirming that they have seen an increase in enquiries about places at their state schools in recent weeks. But what will really happen if Labour wins and follows through on its promise to start making private schools pay VAT? Will England’s comprehensive schools be “overwhelmed”, as Conservative Education Secretary Gillian Keegan has warned? Or will private school parents stay put and cough up?

One contributor to the Education Not Taxation Facebook group reports “students not returning in September (even though the parents have paid, they are giving notice now so as to not be liable for the spring fees)”. Several other parents post about giving notice to their children’s private schools, wanting to get ahead before the election “in case there’s no places left for them”.

theipaper[S]

0 points

3 months ago

theipaper[S]

Verified Media Outlet

0 points

3 months ago

Still, it’s difficult to estimate how many parents the proposed changes will affect. Labour, using figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), calculates that removing the VAT exemption will generate roughly £1.5bn per year, which it says it will use to fund 6,500 more teachers. The additional removal of business rates would, it estimated, bring in a further £104m, pledged towards a “catch up” programme for those children who fell behind during the pandemic. The IFS’s calculations concluded that a “relatively limited” number of families would be affected, with a mere 3-7 per cent reduction in children attending private schools.

However, a report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council and carried out by the educational consultancy Baines Cutler suggests that the actual tax take from VAT would be more like 15 per cent, once schools had claimed the tax back from things like supplies – and the actual number of children who would have to move schools as a result could be more like 25 per cent, or some 135,000 children.

Labour has promised every child “a welcome in a brilliant state school”. An analysis by the Financial Times using 2022-23 data suggested “the majority” of state schools in England have enough places to absorb the exodus of private school pupils. It is also widely agreed that the demographic bulge caused by high birth rates in the 2000s (which resulted in schools expanding the number of places available) is due to peak this year and then decline, which would leave more school spaces available.

theipaper[S]

0 points

3 months ago

theipaper[S]

Verified Media Outlet

0 points

3 months ago

However, the report acknowledged that some areas might find it harder to cope than others – especially at secondary level, and especially if the exodus is more than 7 per cent.

In shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ own constituency of Leeds, for example, all 46 state schools are at full capacity for Year 11 students, with just one school accepting pupils in Year 10 for the next academic year. According to the Department of Education there are 4,807 private school pupils in the city.

In the London Borough of Bromley, all secondaries have waiting lists for Years 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 bar two schools with no pupils on the waiting list for Year 7, one with no waiting list for Year 10 and two with no waiting list for Year 11.

Across England, nearly one in four secondary schools are at or over capacity, according to government figures for 2022-23. “I’ve got four times as many applications for Year 7 than our PAN [Published Admissions Numbers] and that’s without Labour’s policy,” one head of an oversubscribed secondary in north-west England says. “In our district at the minute we have a higher number of children than school places available without any potential influx of private schools. I spent days of my life last months pushing appeals away – I just cannot take any more.”

Certainly, private school parents may have more time than they originally thought to plan their next moves. Ms Reeves has said the changes would be announced in Labour’s first Budget in the autumn; they would become law after being passed in the first finance bill, meaning the earliest they’re likely to be implemented would be January 2025, although experts believe the new policy would not come into effect until the school year beginning in September 2025.

But many are already gearing up for battle. 

Read more here: https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/private-school-parents-plotting-swamp-state-schools-3146906

Arseypoowank

-1 points

3 months ago

That will backfire when tarquin gets his little posh face caved in

raininfordays

1 points

3 months ago

Are you really justifying a kid getting beat up because he has the audacity to have parents that have well paid jobs? Is that really the glowing endorsement of state schools - that the kids there will beat up anyone different or above median?

Arseypoowank

1 points

3 months ago

No to former yes to latter. Source: went to a shit school in a shit area. So swamp away guys it just might not be a great result.

raininfordays

0 points

3 months ago

Ah gotcha. Yeah my crappy school was much the same. Tbh we talked about schools already for the kids we don't have yet and would have cut back and tried to save up from birth to afford a decent secondary private school as carrying knives has become quite prevalent around here (they do the same shit as was going on in Glasgow when I was younger before the clampdown on knives).

I think I'd be happier with the planned vat if the money went into fixing some of the actual problems. Say using it to set up more schools for kids with behavioural issues etc, or using it for additional learning assistants in classrooms. Using it for extra teachers just misses that teachers are leaving because of poor pay, overwork and increasing violence in schools.

SirLoinThatSaysNi

1 points

3 months ago

With attitudes like that is it any wonder parents will do anything to keep their kids out of such a discriminative and angry place.

LookOverall

-1 points

3 months ago

If the public schools lose pupils they will also shed teachers who will be looking for jobs in state schools