1. Discrimination is based on misleading stereotypes.
- State school families should not be assumed to be poor. 75% of top-decile households, and 89% of second-decile households, benefit from taxpayer-funded education, often via hard-to-access grammar schools, expensive catchment areas and tutoring. Because their schooling, which they could afford to pay for, is “free”, they have ample resources to pay for sporting participation, culture, trips and other forms of enrichment, within or outside the school gates.
- Independent school families should not be assumed to be rich. 25% of families affected by VAT on education are in below-median households.
- State schools should not be assumed to be poor. Some PTAs enhance taxpayer-funded schools to the tune of several thousand pounds – per child – plus Gift Aid. That alone is enough to match the average resources of an independent day school. Famous state schools such as London Oratory and Queen Elizabeth Grammar School boast swimming pools, concert halls, Steinways and performance studios that comfortably match the premier independent schools.
- Independent schools should not be assumed to be rich. For example, IGS Durham has fees of £5,000 a year compared to state school average of £8,390 per pupil. Around 20pc of ISC schools have less resource per-pupil than the state school average.
2. Discrimination against independent schools causes harm for minimal or zero benefit
- By perpetuating false stereotypes and presenting them to school teachers, families and the children themselves, these policies are actively teaching society that discrimination is acceptable.
- Only 6pc of children attend independent schools. Even it were morally justifiable, the financial or capacity benefit from treating a small cohort differently is small.
- It is true that some schools, both independent and taxpayer-funded, offer excellent sporting and cultural opportunities. It is unlikely that more affluent families in either sector already using (and paying for) such opportunities will demand them again. Again, the benefit of treating families differently is small.
3. Institutions wishing to support those in need can do so in more reasonable ways
- We recognise that independent institutions may wish to target support where there is genuine need, although some might argue that more affluent households already “do their bit” via the progressive tax system.
- Wishing to target households in need, it would be accurate and efficient to refer to signifiers such as Free School Meals, Pupil Premium, or Index of Multiple Deprivation.
