It’s not really a good thing. It means they get rates reductions. It means they can accept donations with gift aid, stuff like that.
Ultimately that’s taxpayer money, which means you and I are paying for it, whether we use private schools or not.
So we are supporting a system of inequality of opportunity whether we like it or not. It’s not clear cut and I don’t really want to support it, but currently I don’t get a choice. If you make all private schools pay for themselves and take nothing from taxpayers then the choice to use them or not becomes more clear cut but they will certainly be more expensive.
He went to a grammar school isn’t that a completely different thing? I remember kids could take a test in ‘poor’ schools and if they passed (the 11+) they could go… is that even a thing anymore? It’s not right?
I think the verdict was that grammar schools increased inequality because they were largely filled by kids who were privately tutored to pass the 11 plus.
All the kids who ‘failed’ were dumped into secondary moderns and they were obviously off on the wrong foot by that stage already.
It says he went to a grammar school that got turned into an independent while he was there so his parents didn’t have to pay any fees. That’s not even slightly inconsistent with being against private schools on principle. And for that matter neither is having been to one under any circumstances since that would generally not have been someone’s choice but that of their parents.
@markg@voodoo it says he attended a fee paying grammar school that became an independent school.i said he attended an independent school. am i wrong?
@jimo your first argument was that independent schools in the UK are run for profit. you said it more than once. it’s not true - if a school has charitable status it legally cannot turn a profit. furthermore you said taxpayer money is paying for private schools whether we use it or not. taxpayer money should go towards education. if a small amount of taxpayer money goes to these tax breaks for independent schools is that not still taxpayers funding education? can’t seem to win with your logic.
my issue with all of this, as i stated at the beginning of the day, was that Starmer plans on funding an ever increasing amount of things with the VAT on private schools. whilst ignoring any argument that this will just make private schools MORE elite and push thousands of children into an education system that is struggling already. he claims he can push the button immediately yet he clearly can’t “fix education with the money” immediately (not that he’s going to fix it anyway). the only one of you responding to those points without resorting to “rich people bad” is @anonymity
It is true. The fact that these organisations are nominally ‘not for profit’ just means they generate a surplus. They are businesses, and they should be taxed like businesses.
I can’t be bothered arguing with anybody but it probably bears pointing out here that MATs (Multi Academy Trusts) are also basically run for profit too these days and they represent the vast majority of what we think of as ‘state schools’ - hence massive salaries for non-teaching roles, CEOs etc and also hence why it was Cameron’s govt who changed the law to allow MATs to absorb schools formerly run by local authorities.
If anyone is interested, here’s just one link to proper journalism exposing the financial perfidy of one such (now dissolved) MAT. I’m not saying that all are bad by any stretch but the whole system is rotten to a degree.
ahhh who’s being non inclusive now over half a million children are in private education in the UK, their parents taxes are funding state education too. by your argument they should get a tax refund then? fair’s fair right?
so we’re in agreement. they can’t make a profit and you were wrong. again, the reason why they have charitable status is because they are educational institutions and generally people are pro-education for improving society and all that jazz
No, I mentioned my views on this above. State education benefits everyone because we live in a society that needs to be educated. You can’t selectively educate some of the people, or only those who can afford it.
They hide the profits in surpluses, and they invest those surpluses in other business ventures that make a profit. Very common with other dodgy so-called charities and not for profits like Fifa etc…
my wife works for a MAT and is friends with some of the higher up folks, it all stinks apparently. some proper corruption involved in there. some news agency is meant to be doing a big panorama-style investigation
the grammar system is all kinds of crazy. i have some friends who moved into the catchment area of a grammar school and because of that school the house prices are fucking insane (considering it’s near Slough)
as @jimo said the really keen parents pay for tutoring to ensure their kids get in
no you’re right, everyone should get educated. which is why i find it odd that you’re against tax payer money helping to fund private schools whose parents pay taxes…?
I believe that public money should pay for egalitarian service provision. I do not believe there should be a hierarchy of opportunity based on what you can afford. If there is going to be a hierarchy, then it should all be paid for with private funds and not with taxpayer money. All taxpayer money should go to the state system. Simple.
fair enough, i know i’m being facetious but really my main argument for all of this isn’t pro or anti the private school system, i’m just against Starmer’s plans. i don’t think he’s going to improve education in the slightest or make anything more “fair”, he just found a pot of money that he can grab easily
They are. When I went to school there was 2 secondary schools. If you didn’t get into the grammar school you went to the comp which was within walking distance down the road.
When my mum applied I had to have an interview with the head and was asked about current affairs. Now it’s the modern day 11+ to get in from a friends son who goes there.
I think there’s what happens in theory when it comes to private schools and VAT, and what happens in practice.
In theory, wealthy people who can afford to send their kids private will pay more tax, which will benefit the less well-off.
In practice, the Eton and Harrow parents will do that and hardly notice the difference. But a bigger number of middle-income parents, and parents of Special Needs kids using specialist schools will be priced out. Until now they’ve been paying for state education through their taxes but not using it. Now they’ll send their kids to state schools instead, saving themselves a ton of money and imposing more demands on the state system, which will have to find more places. I think whatever the principles, the state system will end up suffering.
over half a million children are in private education in the UK, their parents taxes are funding state education too. by your argument they should get a tax refund then? fair’s fair right?