Cheer up, Bridget, your lucky day is nigh!

MissAdventure

It's not penalising someone to expect them to pay tax.

It's whether it's an ethical tax which is the question.
Parenrs who are British taxpayers will already have paid substantial amounts of income tax.

Whoever was involved, you had the advantage of being able to do what you thought was right for your child. I have no problem with that.

But what about the parents who couldn’t have afforded to drive 15 miles to take their child to another school even if they ed psych said they should?

(^The government collects taxes to pay for schools, hospitals, the police, the army and other public services.^)

Parents, who are already paying taxes which contribute to their children and other children’s education might, like you,
choose to do what they can for their children.
Those who have struggled to do that will now have to accept whatever’s on offer, just like any parents who, unlike you, couldn’t afford to drive long distances to another school, even if an EdPsych advised it.

It's not penalising someone to expect them to pay tax.

Mollygo

MissAdventure

It's a matter of living within your means.
If people can't afford private education for their children, well..

Yes but even those who don’t support private education, do better than poorer parents who can’t afford to be
^ a mouthy middle class mother who^ could afford to drive him to and from a distant school
instead of doing their best to improve the school where he was to get the best for all children.
But parents who want to do the best for their children and may struggle to pay for private education should be further penalised.

The educational psychologist was involved Mollygo and we took her advice that there was a specialist teacher in the school 15 miles away who would be right for him. Moving state schools was then, and I would guess still is, right for some children. I don’t think with the best will in the world that every state school will ever have the specialist expertise needed for every presenting child, some will have to move to get the best for them- nor do I think a private school focussed on academic success can do the best for every child.

MissAdventure

It's a matter of living within your means.
If people can't afford private education for their children, well..

Yes but even those who don’t support private education, do better than poorer parents who can’t afford to be
^ a mouthy middle class mother who^ could afford to drive him to and from a distant school
instead of doing their best to improve the school where he was to get the best for all children.
But parents who want to do the best for their children and may struggle to pay for private education should be further penalised.

ronib the poorest cohort in private education will have to join the 97% of the rest who go to state schools. I worked in an independent school that was seriously posh, but it was a lovely place to work. What’s not to like with smaller classes, longer holidays, more money? I know the VAT hasn’t made a difference to their numbers, in fact applications have increased. There are many bursaries for those to help with fees. The really hard up could apply for those.

An active parent-teacher association can be a thorn in the side of the head and the staff, if they badger them unsympathetically, but a good PTA and a good head working together can improve morale immensely.

Allira

Casdon

Im not arguing for the removal of private education GrannyGravy13, I don’t think that will ever happen. What I’m trying to say is that if sending a child to private school means a whole family sacrifices all the fun things in life to pay for that education, they would be far better to fight for the child in the state education system.

By the time improvements are made their child might have left school.

But other children, whose parents for one reason or another are not in a position to either fight for change or to pay to bypass any faults in the system, have to live with whatever shortcomings have driven some to transfer their child to a private school. Is it right that the children should just have to put up with them?

One of the strengths of a good state education system is that when articulate middleclass parents send their children to a local community school, they have the confidence to speak out about things that could be better, and to join parent-teacher associations to try to improve them. If they just decamp because they can afford to, they abandon those who can't afford it.

"GrannyGravy13 Tue 31-Dec-24 19:11:57
It’s simple really improve state education, reintroduce grammar schools UK wide.

Do you mean grammar schools for every child? Not every child thrives at the same kind of school, and state education, by definition, aims to educate every child. Grammar schools are good schools for some, not so much so for others - and the others deserve to have money and effort spent on their education too, otherwise they will grow up uneducated and ignorant. An educated workforce is a national asset. An uneducated and ignorant one is not.

The rationale for grammar schools was that some pupils learnt faster and deeper than others while some needed to go more slowly, some could follow lecture-style lessons in a large class while some needed one-to-one tuition, some could sit still for an hour or more at a time, while some did better if shorter bouts of theory were interspersed with periods of physical activity, some had clever minds, some clever hands, some clever hearts. Some would have a future in academic or theoretical work, some with hand skills, some in caring for others. Those were different abilities and it was thought that schools with different approaches would suit different learning styles.

So were born grammar schools (which offered to selected clever pupils a free education which didn't end for all at about 14, as it did previously unless their parents sent them to private schools either because they had the spare money to afford it or because they won a scholarship funded by a philanthropist that paid the fees of a few outstanding pauper children.) Other possibilities were free technical schools (for the budding artisans and tradesmen) or the free new secondary moderns (for those who neither qualified as clever enough for a grammar school nor showed signs of inheriting enough of a manual skill to go to a technical school.

Then there were the different DISabilities. Some had problems with their sight, or their hearing, or their mobility, or their mental, emotional, or physical development. There were special schools where the teaching style was suited to the abilities of these children.

All these different types of schools needed more teachers, trained in the different teaching styles needed. This cost money, as did the multiplication of buildings and their maintenance and ancillary staff. Gradually, partly for financial/political reasons and partly because it was discovered that, surprise surprise, not all children are ready at age 11 to be put into a permanent category for life, policies changed to teaching all children in one secondary school, whatever their learning style, whatever abilities and subjects suited them, and whatever disabilities they suffered from. A teacher was expected to teach in several styles and levels simultaneously in one classroom, and often to teach subjects at secondary level other than their own specialist knowledge when there were not the funds to support more staff.

After decades of trying to run a state education system without enough funding there is at last the beginning of an attempt to make up for what has been lost. It should not focus just on educating the academic/intellectual/theoretical section of the workforce. "State Education" is more than that.

Casdon

Im not arguing for the removal of private education GrannyGravy13, I don’t think that will ever happen. What I’m trying to say is that if sending a child to private school means a whole family sacrifices all the fun things in life to pay for that education, they would be far better to fight for the child in the state education system.

By the time improvements are made their child might have left school.

Im not arguing for the removal of private education GrannyGravy13, I don’t think that will ever happen. What I’m trying to say is that if sending a child to private school means a whole family sacrifices all the fun things in life to pay for that education, they would be far better to fight for the child in the state education system.

It’s interesting that at the private schools in my area quite a few of the parents are teachers in the state sector. I wonder why that is?

All things will never be equal.
That's a given.

Those privately educating their children need to pay tax.

Casdon I mostly agree with your post.

I totally agree with choice, and that includes private education.

As a free country we shouldn’t remove things due to some not being able to afford or want them.

It is a fact of life that we all should have the ability to improve our lot and then live within our means

All being equal is a communist pipe dream, totally unworkable and untrue.

It's a matter of living within your means.
If people can't afford private education for their children, well..

Doodledog yes of course I know that. I have heard though of parents making all kinds of financial sacrifices to pay school fees. It’s not easy at all. To add 20 percent really has pulled the ladder away from the poorer cohort in private education.

ronib

Doodledog parents go to extreme lengths to pay school fees and that will include eating budget food for example, baked beans and jacket potatoes for example.

Yes. But there are many parents for whom that just won't make enough difference.

Are you really unable to see that?

I think there are answers to meet the needs of every child outside the private education system ronib, for those with strong parents who advocate for them. I don’t think putting a family into a level of poverty that means they have to live on baked beans to support a child in private education is the right thing for any family, it’s far too stressful, and children are very perceptive. Imagine the guilt you’d feel at 11 years old if you were the cause of that poverty because you ‘didn’t fit’.

I’m speaking from experience, because one of my children really struggled at school, and we had to fight hard for him to be moved to a different school, which was 15 miles away. But… I’m well aware that I’m a mouthy middle class mother who didn’t give up, and could drive him to and from a distant school when the battle was won. It should be possible for all children whatever their needs and background, to have a decent state education, but that can only be achieved with more money, more will - and more input from better educated parents who will drive up standards for everybody by ensuring their own children get a good state education.

Doodledog parents go to extreme lengths to pay school fees and that will include eating budget food for example, baked beans and jacket potatoes for example.

ronib

Doodledog end of was meant to reinforce the fact that all children are entitled to the best learning environment. You don’t disagree I hope?

When state education is unable to educate children for whatever reason, parents have an obligation to search out educational opportunities to enable adequate levels of learning. If that means eating baked beans for years on end, so be it.

I don't disagree that all children (for whatever reason????) should have the best learning environment.

I don't understand the rest of your post. Many parents (including the employees of those who earn enough to buy themselves out of having to eat baked beans) try to search out educational opportunities for their children but can't afford them when they find them.

(what have baked beans to do with things? I tried.)

Casdon it shouldn’t in an ideal world but I hope you don’t expect parents to abandon their children if the State system fails them. And the State system is not perfect by any means.

ronib

Doodledog end of was meant to reinforce the fact that all children are entitled to the best learning environment. You don’t disagree I hope?

When state education is unable to educate children for whatever reason, parents have an obligation to search out educational opportunities to enable adequate levels of learning. If that means eating baked beans for years on end, so be it.

When state education is unable to educate all children well, it needs the funding to enable it to adapt to do so ronib. A child’s life chances should not depend on the ability of parents to pay for private education.

When a person, or a company or an institution applies to register for VAT they have to include on the form a code which identifies the nature of their work. Thus, HMRC will be able to identify the amount paid by schools.

MissAdventure
Private schools paying tax will improve state education.
Job done.

GrannyGravy13
I only wish I had your faith that this VAT will be ringfenced for state education

Exactly how it will be used (not how they say it will be used) and the impact on state education will be a matter for future observation.
For a start we can expect higher GCSE results attributed to the extra money.

All primary children from rich or poor families, whether they can afford it or not, will be getting a free, nutritionally balanced breakfast, so presumably some of the money will provide both the food and the organisation for administering this.
All the dilapidated buildings will be brought up to a good standard.
All schools will obviously now be able to provide the necessary resources for all subjects.
I’m just grateful that it will help pay for my pay rise.

They won't need to, once the private schools start paying their tax.