iNews bizarrely choose private school abolitionist as their "fact-checker"
If you wanted an unbiased fact-check about private schools, you wouldn't ask me, nor would you ask the Private Education Policy Forum
The headline is a fib
So according to the headline “Sunak claims middle income families use private schools”. The brazenly wrong headline is probably the most damaging bit of this horrible article, and ironically astonishing, bizarre even, in a “fact-check”.
If you read the actual article, it turns out the “middle income” bit came from “an assistant headteacher of a private school on Teesside” who said that Labour’s VAT policy would drive many of his students out and
“Many of our families are middle-income families that make lifestyle compromises”
Sunak never said “middle income”, he responded that education is terrifically important and it’s wrong to attack people for wanting a better life for their families. Hardly controversial?
What’s middle income anyway?
In a broad sense of “middle income”, our teacher friend is right…he’s probably talking about, say, households between the 90th down to the 60th percentile, i.e., the comfortably off but not super-rich. That could have been it….but for some reason iNews decided to hold this teacher to the definition of the median earner on £38,100…
…it’s accurate if slightly anal, and convenient if you want to rev up a class warfare oppressor/oppressed story. If you earn £50k, for example, be careful because they’re coming for you with pitchforks.
The Private Education Abolition Society
iNews goes on to get the facts checked by that well-known unbiased arbiter, the Private Education Policy Forum. which “aims to reduce inequalities relating to private schools and fee-paying education by platforming research and debate”. If you look at their website you won’t find much “platforming” or “debate” except for Francis Green’s longstanding campaign to abolish private schools, and the PEPF Board members reviewing and promoting their own books criticising private schools.
As readers may remember, Francis Green went to private school and sent his kids to grammar. Drawbridge up.
The PEPF commentary goes as follows:
“parents on the UK average income of £35,000 a year would find it “extremely difficult if not impossible” to send just one child to most private schools, let alone multiple children, and that even families with salaries much higher than the average “would struggle to pay the average private school fee given the cost of living crisis“.
Many people may need inherited family wealth in order to pay for private school, instead of being able to rely on a fairly good, middle-income salary. So the idea that it’s based on meritocratic hard work really is misleading
“The data shows it’s overwhelmingly parents in the top 10 per cent earning bracket who send their kids to private schools. The idea that all sections of society can access these schools if they work hard enough is simply not borne out by the evidence.”
Fact-checking the fact-checker…hold on tight
The PEPF says the “average income” is £35k a year, but 2 paragraphs up we’re told the median was £35k before taxes and benefits and £38,100 net of benefits. Which is quite a difference.
The relevant consideration isn’t individual income but household income. 2 parents on £38,100 each after taxes and benefits (if that’s right) jolly well could manage 2 kids private for five years if they plan ahead and save hard. Perhaps for ten years if willing to keep working hard later in life. Maybe this Teesside primary for £12k a year increasing to £15k.
Actually, the relevant consideration isn’t even household income, but household income compared to peer families with school-age children, where both mean and median will be much higher than for the general population.
The PEPF digs out their favourite strawman about “all sections of society”. Since nobody said that “all sections of society” can afford private school, excuse us while we don’t try to provide evidence for the claim we didn’t make; although Mr Chips could explain to them how the provision of highly variable
freetaxpayer-funded education in the state sector with colossal barriers to entry gives us the status quo ofsome parents competing hard to obtain what is taxpayer-funded and good
other parents competing hard to avoid what is taxpayer-funded and poor, thus driving up the cost of independent schools
virtually no new entrants offering more affordable private education
Income isn’t a “given”:
People don’t land in the top 10 per cent bracket by accident - it’s some combination of delayed gratification, good choices, and hard work….the latter can, of course, be withdrawn at any time, along with the tax contributions.
It always escapes Professor Green that the causal relationship between private school and income works both ways: higher earners can afford private school; people wanting private school work their socks off.
Meanwhile in the “middle-income” percentiles, however you define them, there are some who are content with state school and work a bit less than their potential, enjoying leisure instead…a reasonable choice indeed and one Professor Green implies doesn’t exist.
Even if it is challenging, it’s not the point. The point the nice teacher is making is that if it gets even more challenging because of Labour’s schools tax, families will pull out and that hurts the public finances while messing up children and families’ lives.
If private school is indeed so expensive it’s unaffordable for most….and we agree with PEPF that it’s a challenge even for high-earners given the cost-of-living crisis…how is the right answer to slap VAT and make it even less affordable? What problem are we trying to address, exactly? Oh, I remember….it’s not about practical matters and revenue-raising, it’s about class warfare and destroying institutions….
Related to which, the PEPF seems oblivious to the inconsistency between
their opinion in another biased “fact-check” that (i) asserts a migration of “only” 13-26,000 children leaving due to affordability based on our old friend the IFS’ research which used data from 1993-2007; (ii) claims this will only happen gradually based on….thin air
…and their assertion that affordability is a massively pressing challenge especially given the cost-of-living crisis.
I can help the PEPF / PEAS with their synthesis.
The IFS data was sketchy when it was produced, and is now irrelevant, due substantially to the cost-of-living crisis, and completely useless when comparing historically small incremental price rises to a large one-off.
Private education is very expensive and higher-earners (the affluent but unspectactular, say the 80th-95th percentile) have affordability challenges. VAT will make them worse.
Every pupil that migrates is a hit to the public finances and a burden to state education, and leaves behind a private sector even more closed and exclusive than it is today.
I always used to say to some extremely left wing anti private school friends: how is it not OK for us to live in a modest suburban house and pay three lots of school fees but it is OK for you to have a lovely flat in a garden square in Kensington and a Manor house in the Cotswolds? Why don't you live in a council house if your principle is that we should all be forced to take what the state offers?