To ask if anyone is clued up on the challenge this week to VAT on school fees?

You actually said “the majority won’t pay” which means that more will be leaving private school than staying

No but I’m sure there will be places if parents look properly. Focusing on only one school with zero flexibility isn’t going to give you a place if a school is oversubscribed. There will be other options.

I guess it’s easier to declare there are no places when you don’t get your place of choice mid year. There are places. Sailing so close to the wind that you can’t find an extra £2k to finish 2 terms if say you lost your job or had a big bill doesn’t illustrate prudent financial planning. It’s not really the fault of anybody else that parents need to move mid year. This has been in the cards for some time.

No it is not fine for any child to ever be out of education - whether private to state or state to state. It’s a massive problem and all these kids should be tracked. Educational absences should be tracked for all kids whether on roll or not, except where they are voluntarily homeschooled. But that should be voluntarily, not because the LA has failed to find them a place - all LAs should be forced to create places and given funding to do so very promptly.

So it's fine for those kids to be out of education until Sept?

Numbers aren't dropping in state secondaries yet, they are still bulge years up until 2029

‘Parents taking a foolish gamble are not the tax payers problem.’

It’s not the tax payers problem right now, infact PS saves tax payers £4 billion a year but the policy will quite clearly force it to become the tax payers problem. People who are not net tax payers are always less concerned about how tax money is spent (in my experience) as they effectively aren’t paying any.

Investing in education isn’t a foolish gamble, being completely honest it’s keeping my kids away from that sort of attitude and the spite that goes with it that makes paying independent fees worthwhile. It’s a priceless benefit.

Really that’s surprising given how numbers are dropping. Will only be 2 terms from January. Fresh new year in September.

Actually there are many examples of LAs saying 0 spaces for in year transfers for the year needed

Evidence for them making a profit because I can provide evidence that shows they won't

“They’ll still make a profit and any money is much needed for services”

There has to be proportionality for this to pass the human rights aspect though - so a small profit fails on proportionality. Even best case scenario of 1.5-2 billion a year is arguably not proportional compared to the overall education budget. So it may fail anyway.

Given there is now a resignation of a senior minister with a spent fraud conviction I supppse some of us were simply naive in assuming this Government cares about following the law more than the previous government. For example, you could never practise as a lawyer with a previous fraud conviction but it appears it is not a barrier to becoming a senior politician.

@twistyizzy
Of course there's a state school they can attend, it just might not be that close or desirable.

94% of kids go to state school, a further 1% are in independent but funded by the state (typically complex special needs) for sorry that the rest of us can't be overly sympathetic to the 5%

They’ll still make a profit and any money is much needed for services.

The point is that you only need a small percentage of children leaving private education and the state having to educate them at a cost of 7-8k per annum, for this to quickly become loss making. And that isn’t even considering the job losses on top of that and loss of tax revenue there.

So the majority will stay.

One sixth of DDs year group have left/are leaving this term and much fewer are starting Yr 7 or 12

I said more than anticipated. This disproportionately impacts Northern + rural areas + smaller local indy schools. The big ones in the South East + London/ big famous public schools will be fine as they generally serve more wealthy families

You’re the one saying you can’t afford changes in fees.

Care to link. Where has it been reported that the majority of privately educating parents are withdrawing?

Because we spent primary years saving up. We can't afford it out of our wages so saved up 3 years of fees before she started Yr 7.
The majority won't simply pay hence why more than predicted have already withdrawn. Unless obviously you are privy to finances of over 300 000 parents!
Stop telling us what we can and can't afford. Thr arrogance is outstanding

You not being able to afford private education makes you the same as the 94% majority. 🤷‍♀️

How do you know you can afford yearly rises- cost of living, jobs aren’t secure, fee rises are not mapped out and can increase massively at any time… Signing up to paying fees that are more than many people earn is ludicrous unless you are very wealthy of which the majority of fee paying parents are. The majority will simply pay.

Parents taking a foolish gamble are not the tax payers problem.

Because we are all able to predict the future. That's like saying don't do anything in life unless you can guarantee you will always be able to afford it. We can afford fees + yearly rise, we can't afford fees + yearly rise + 20% tax

It’s the parents that need to look them in the eye. Don’t start private education if you can’t guarantee that you’ll always be able to afford it which the majority can’t and sensibly don’t start.

www.lifeconnect24.co.uk/blog/top-15-hobby-ideas-for-older-people/

Your “facts” are presented through the prism of your bias. An example is your comment on Starmer’s education. The “facts” are distorted.

“No it wasn't simply a risk pointed out. The post I referenced stated "If you want to tax education then do it fairly ie private nurseries + universities". If one group were to be taxed, others should be too.”

@BotanicalGreen - it’s still a simple legal point and ground 1 of the claim.
Essential education is not a commodity to be taxed.
Some of us were just highlighting what may have to happen to make it legal. Like it or not, it’s simply stating the obvious.

We do understand that it is going to be very embarrassing for Starmer to lose on ground 1 when this was so obviously a legal risk to any lawyer in the first place. There couldn’t have been naivety on their part. They chose to ignore it deliberately and whip their MPs accordingly. The private school sector will have already spent millions on this- let’s just hope they can’t claim damages.