ChatterBank1 min ago
Vat On Private School Fees.
Contary to what many people think, sending kids to private school is not the sole preserve of the rich, and many people scrimp and save to be able to do so, so a 20% increase in their fees could make it unaffordable resulting in state schools having to take their kids in. It has been reported that 40% of kids could be withdrawn from private education. There's 550,000 kids being educated privately, so state schools will need to find places for an additional 220,000 kids. Plus this mass withdrawal could send some private schools under.
https:/
The lack of VAT on private school fees is not, as some on the Left see it, a tax break for the rich.
Why is he going to do this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“... and if "State education is unfixable" throughout those 45 years, maybe it's time to give somebody else a chance now.”
It’s unfixable regardless of who is in power. It’s unfixable because it’s “free” and must accept allcomers.
“> largely brought about by the Labour Party”
Indeed. In fact, more specifically than that, brought about principally by the Rt. Hon. Anthony Crosland, MP, Secretary of State for Education and Science in Harold Wilson’s government. That government’s policy to establish Comprehensive schools across England and Wales gained traction under Crosland and by the end of Labour power in 1979 over 90% of pupils were in comprehensive schools. Mr Crosland himself, needless to say, had enjoyed a private education at Sir Roger Cholmeley's, a fee paying school in Highgate, North London, before going on to Trinity College, Oxford.
In her biography published in 1982, Susan Crosland said her husband had told her "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every *** grammar school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland." He almost succeeded in that aim, with only about 5% of secondary pupils now attending grammar schools in E&W.
My very own alma mater suffered from this policy. When I attended it was a grammar school holding voluntary-aided status. It was controlled by a board of trustees and governors but received state funding for its everyday running. It was always in the top five best performing grammar schools in London and consistently in the top ten in England. However, despite being compelled to adopt a Comprehensive curriculum, it manages to maintain its standards. It is one of the highest performing state schools in England and Wales in terms of the GCSE and GCE (A-Level) results, and is considered one of the best schools in the UK. The latest Ofsted Inspection Report was published in 2023 with the inspection team judging the school "Outstanding" in all areas. It now holds Academy status, is massively over-subscribed and selects more than 70% of its intake by means of a governors’ entrance exam. That, together with powers of immediate expulsion for disruption, is the only way State schools will experience an overall improvement.
My school is an exception, with much of its philosophy carried over from its grammar school days. But expecting secondary schools to properly teach their pupils when large numbers of them have inadequate primary school skills and who do not want to be in school at all cannot succeed.
That’s why parents scrimp and scrape to send their children to private schools and that’s why they should not have to pay VAT on their fees.
"Everything you say is true of children whose parents can't pay, as well as children whose parents can pay."
Exactly.
But so long as State schools are obliged to accept allcomers, the only way it can be "fixed" is by selection. Selective schools - whether you call them "grammars", "comprehensives", or whatever invariably perform better than non-selective schools.
What has happened since the virtual abolition of grammar schools is that the only parents who can more or less guarantee a suitable education for their children are those who can pay for it. Some get lucky if they live in an area where there are plenty of good schools but most don't.
Prior to the 1970s there was separation by academic ability, now there is separation by parental wealth. However the government chooses to organise secondary education there will be separation. If the government does not provide it parents will organise it for themselves. Abolishing grammar schools restricted the numbers of pupils who could attend well performing schools. Taxing school fees will restrict them further.
There is no doubt that I would not have received such a good education were it not for grammar schools. Nor would five successive Prime Ministers. Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher and John Major all attended grammar schools with John Major (born 1943) the last to do so.
One way or another parents who are willing and able to will see that their children receive a good education. This means there will be separation. Since governments seem unwilling to countenance separation by ability it will inevitably occur by wealth.
"Selective schools - whether you call them "grammars", "comprehensives", or whatever invariably perform better than non-selective schools. "
well.. yes. because they exclude everybody who does not have pre-existing aptitude and therefore actually needs a high quality education.
the trouble with selection and with expelling disruptive students is that crummy students need to be educated too or else you're just going to create an underclass.
regarding labour's vat policy... it's just tinkering really. i don't see the point.
untitled: "the trouble with selection and with expelling disruptive students is that crummy students need to be educated too or else you're just going to create an underclass." - ...and that's unavoidable, those kids will be lucky to get any sort of job or career. So why ruin everyone's education to accommodate the problem kids?
because everybody needs to be educated even the "problem" kids. there's nothing "inevitable" about creating an underclass, it is a choice. i would also suggest that bright kids are going to need to go out there and share the world with people who aren't bright, and so dealing with people who aren't like them is part of receiving an education.
One horror of a child disrupts the learning of the other 29. That is not fair to anyone. Plus the fact that is is usually more than one horror these days. Teachers are leaving the profession in their droves and it's mostly down to not tackling behaviour and feckless parents who do not support the school and do not see why their precious should be punished. I've noticed a serious decline at our school in the past year. The government does nothing to support the schools with challenging students except come along with another load of guidelines tying their hands up.
Of course disruptive students need educating as well, but they should be removed from the mainstream until they learn to behave.
I could give lots of examples but it might identify where I work and them me along with it. But lets just say, there will be no decent teachers in 10 years time once the most experienced have retired and then the education system will really be in trouble. Lots of students coming out of uni can't get a job so jump on a PGCE or the like because they'll be more or less guarenteed a job at the end of it, however, most of them are not natural born teachers and it shows.
Wow! Sorry, that turned into a rant.
"...the trouble with selection and with expelling disruptive students is that crummy students need to be educated too or else you're just going to create an underclass."
The education system does not create an underclass - it has to deal with it. Certainly as far as secondary education goes (which is really the subject of this thread) many pupils have already been steered into an underclass by their parents. Nothing the schools can do will alter that and all that will happen is that the disruptive pupils will significantly hamper the education of children who want to learn and whose parents support them in their studies.
Untitled - // if parents will not support a child in their studies then the state should do it. children with the misfortune to have neglectful parents should not be abandoned. //
It depends what you mean by 'support'.
Some primary children arrive in school in nappies, unable to sit at a table and eat with a knife and fork, or hold a basic conversation.
What sort of 'support' do you think the state can offer them?
The thread has diverged into different sub-threads, but in essence the difference between £8000 per term and £9600 per term is just numbers. The principles still remain the same.
My school was not a grammar, but it was both set and streamed, which I was very grateful for at the time. A lot has changed since then, and there seems to be universal agreement that the direction of travel has been downhill. Something better needs to be done just to get back to where we were a generation, or two, or three, ago ...
“…if parents will not support a child in their studies then the state should do it. children with the misfortune to have neglectful parents should not be abandoned.”
The only way that could be achieved is to take the child into care. Clearly not a practical option (even if the family court would allow it).
Sixty years ago, a child returning from school saying he had been punished for misbehaviour in school would receive an additional punishment from his parents. Today, many children doing the same would be more likely to see their parents set off to the school to give the teacher a rollicking or a punch in the face. It’s a different world.
Those children need to be segregated from those whose parents support both their child and the school but the State education system will not hear of it. So many State schools see the education of their pupils compromised by an unruly minority. That’s why parents pay for private education and that’s why they should not pay tax on those fees. Early on in this thread it was said
“What is the justification for private education to be zero-rated for VAT, when there is a perfectly good free education available to all?”
The justification for both education and healthcare is that very often there is not a perfectly good state-provided alternative. And in those circumstances, people who choose to look after themselves when the State cannot should not be taxed for having to do so.
Sorry, but I have little sympathy. Most children are in state schools. Some children are in private schools. Most of those in private schools can pay 20% more on fees (knowing that school fees are not the total costs of private schools). Some cannot, and will be in the same situation that many state school children who almost could pay private schools, but can't quite, are in now. It's sad for all children who are in poor education, and it's something that the government should have been addressed, rather than making things progressively worse for decades. There is no excuse. The country would be in a better place if more children were better educated.
