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

Your posts are very encouraging

Is tax on education amongst ECHR signatories usual? How many signatories tax education? Is it 0?

Errrrr, (googles) it does actually seem to be zero

You've got the rhetorical flourishes to win the case!

Is tax on education amongst ECHR signatories usual? How many signatories tax education? Is it 0? Is tax on services only between the ages of 4 and 18 usual?

Hopefully, we should find out shortly who is correct. I say hopefully, as I fully expect Labour to first delay and then drop (amend the policy to a massive extent to save face) rather than face the embarrassment of losing the legal action. I personally think it would be healthier to put the issue to bed once and for all. Then it’s time for a discussion around some sort of education voucher scheme, next Government most likely.

The state does not have to subsidise private education - that was established in a case called the Belgian Linguistics Case. But it should not interfere in its provision. The VAT is an interference by the state in the Art 2 right (the fees themselves are not - not imposed by the state).

However, @Mrsbabbecho and I do not agree on this this being a winning argument! Art 2 is not an absolute right, it's qualified. The state can interfere if it has a legitimate aim. The government has a strong claim here to a legitimate aim. The measure taken to achieve the aim must be proportionate. The courts cut the state a lot of slack here (margin of appreciation), are mindful of the accountability of the democratic process (which judges are not subject to, and are inclined to be deferential to on issues of proportionality) and are likely to acknowledge that paying VAT on services is not unusual.

If every parent pulls their child out of indy then it will cost the taxpayer £4 billion per year. Indy schools save the state that amount each year. We don't ask the state to pay for our children's education yet we are being penalised? The people who don't pay directly and expect the state to pay for their kids are telling us we should pay more?

Of course they’ll stay. This is all about the entitled being outraged about having to pay more, doesn’t mean they can’t pay more.

Nobody agrees, including the Government.

These schools are businesses and if you do t think you’re getting value for money, then don’t use them.

The ones that are businesses are businesses, the ones that are charities are charities. Labour had to be reminded of this in the courts as well, again nobody else is questioning this.

Of course they’ll stay. This is all about the entitled being outraged about having to pay more, doesn’t mean they can’t pay more.
These schools are businesses and if you do t think you’re getting value for money, then don’t use them.

I don't believe it will happen tbh. I think the vast majority will stay in the private system and from the links posted on here on other threads there is capacity in the state system.

As for the rest well welcome to everyone else's world. You pays your money you takes your choice as they say.

That doesn’t address the problem. It just pushes more children into fewer schools, increasing the competition for places. Many families love where live, and often provide support for nearby relatives. They shouldn’t have to move to access a decent education.

I know not everyone has but for some employment is much more flexible these days moving might be an option for some.

It can free up equity in other areas that could cover the VAT too.

We have no small nurturing secondary schools anywhere near us, like many in the country. This is the problem with the state system; it’s a postcode lottery. Those who don’t see the need for private schools are often those with the luxury of having access to great state provision. Not all of us do.

Also online schools will now also be subject to the VAT? So parents with children with EBSA will not have to pay up unless they organise individual tutors under the VAT threshold? How is this OK? I just do not get it. Are they going to tax online schools provided out of other jurisdictions as well and are they going to regulate them properly?

I also think when hormones come into play things can exacerbate very quickly for some children with SEND. Couple that with the exam pressure and testing and high discipline environment in some state schools, it is a recipe for disaster for some kids. A lot of kids have sensory issues and even rigid uniform policies are enough to stress them out and send them over the edge.
There is also the attendance pressure in state schools and much shorter holidays.

Because it’s not a human right defined by the ECHR for the state (or PS) to cater for each education choice, only not to prevent it. It’s a negative right.

Here is the pertinent text of article 2 protocol 1, have a read and see if you think the Government ever had a chance of implementing this:
’the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

It just makes zero sense to me to impose a policy that will harm but not help. I have said repeatedly that if there was a snowballs chance in hell of this working and addressing the issues in state I'd be for it, regardless of personal impact. But to be ok with it harming existing kids in the sector just to what? Level down? Make it "fair" that's equally shit for everyone? I simply cannot understand the logic of that. How about instead we bite the bullet as a society, EVERYONE pays 1-2p more on income tax and we actually raise enough to do something meaningful. @Willyoujustbequiet its great that you found what you needed in state but many many don't and that simply highlights what many of us have been saying, that there's just as much inequality within the state sector as between private and state. This is a spite tax and nothing else. It drips from some peoples' posts. Sad really.

I agree mostly primary but where we live there is a 3 tier system so up to year 9 it's not an issue really. Then depending on the area there are still small classes..DD has 9 in hers at high school but the average is 17. This is a big school too.

I know we aren't the only state school like this. People should consider different areas if that's possible. It's an option.

Starmer doesn't want those 'vocal' parents doing too much anyway, he will readjust schools until all dc receive a lower education

There’s a lot at primary not so much the case at state secondary, that’s why a lot of Sen children burn out in year 7

But why has the vat changed the position? If it is a winner then can all parents who want say a faith school or single sex but can’t afford the basic fees even before vat was added take the case to court as their child’s human rights are being breached/ it’s discrimination and the government will have to pay the full fees? Has vat changed the position somehow and if so what’s the logic relating specifically to vat and not fees as a whole being the barrier?

There are lots of state schools that have small classes and nuturing environments. Ours does. It's not an either or situation.

Read the posts above. Some children cannot cope in mainstream schools but thrive in smaller environments. One poster mentions her son wanting to die and trying to throw himself down the stairs. That’s not just a simple case of teaching kids to be a bit more resilient. They simply can’t cope.

A small nurturing environment should be available to everyone but isn’t. Harming a section of children isn’t going to help anyone else.

The ISC legal action is not just concentrated on SEN, but also faith, single sex, specialist in nature ie music, sports etc. education. Any children who are being denied their parents chosen education as a result of the policy. It’s a winner.

Does anyone know what the legal arguement actually is? All I can find from googling it’s thst it’s potentially a breach of human rights/ discrimination as a school may be the only school that can meet a child’s needs due to Sen, I understand that bit. however there is already a system in place in place for Sen, people apply for an ehcp, and have access to tribunal if they disagree with the la’s decision, so if a school is the only school that can meet a child’s needs the existing Sen system can be used so that school is named on the child’s ehcp and then the la will fund the fees including vat. In practise the Sen system is shite and it takes years to get through the process so I totally understand why parents bypass it completely by opting for private but then shouldn’t the human rights/ discrimination arguement be against the existing Sen system rather than vat on school fees.

20% use it at some point in their education, this policy may put it out of reach for you if you were desperate to use it say to cover GCSE or a level when an event happens which makes your current state school untenable, You may find yourself priced out or all the local schools closed down.
You are arguing to reduce your education choices as a parent as well as everyone elses. You’ve been duped by the oldest divide and conquer trick in the book, the aim of this policy is purely ideological.

Of course they will. Forces kids to it all the time.Since when as a society did we produce a majority of kids unable to cope with moving schools? Life isn’t about being blissfully happy all the time, any parent striving for that is not doing their child a favour, quite the reverse.