AIBU to think that Bridget Phillipson is exaggerating the level of middle-class support for VAT on school fees?

[TepidWatersOfManagedDecline]

Bridget Phillipson has been quoted as saying that the policy is supported by "middle-class parents in good professional jobs with housing costs who just can't afford that level of fee" and want "brilliant state schools". www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86wd1y7v2xo

Is this true, in your experience? Most middle-class parents with professional jobs who I’ve discussed this with think that it’s a spiteful policy (including those who don’t use the independent sector).

AIBU to think that Bridget Phillipson is exaggerating the level of support for the policy?

God. What a thread.

If charging VAT on education is going to improve state schools then I want the VAT to be charged on all education.

Music lessons, swimming lessons, sports training, playgroups, kumon, Suzuki, ballet, tap, theatre, tutoring and everything. School trips too. They are a luxury.

If we believe in this - if we want this to work, then we all have to do our but don’t we? We can’t expect state schools to get better with just fee paying VAT. It won’t be enough money.

We all have to be part of this.

Do tell us more.

Yes, I think she's right. Private education is wildly unpopular amongst those that cannot afford it. That's most people.

It's hard to think of a demographic that would generate less sympathy in the general public.

Certainly. Just try rocking up at a few CLPs. You’ll find sharp-elbow practitioners soon enough. Some will have learnt Latin too. These self-satisfied people can show you the ropes in advanced hypocrisy while you’re at it. 👍

I agree with you on the outcomes necessary, just I would have preferred it to be done intelligently, with some sort of thought given to predicting undesirable consequences and seeking to mitigate them.

As it is, we have a policy where the comparatively ‘rich’ (but not the actually rich people, who won’t be affected at all) are being clobbered, but Labour have forgotten to balance that by advantaging the less privileged in many areas. So some of the already less privileged get clobbered even more than they already are. As if Robin Hood stole from the rich but forgot to redistribute it to the poor.

Oh sorry, it went over my head. I hadn’t twigged that you are in favour of teaching Latin.

We are a middle class family (doctor and lawyer). I was educated at state school, DH at private boarding school. We have three DCs, two at state and one at private. We support the VAT on school fees. Private schools are businesses, not charities.

Do tell us more? Is that an instruction?

The issue is that all those who support it either wilfully ignore the facts, or simply can't be bothered to do their own research and accept as gospel everything Bridget says.

There are plenty of comments on here that clearly explain the reality - go read them if you want to know more, although I suspect you're in the first group I refer to.

Similarly, DH and I are both what most people would call middle class, in professional careers, i'm state educated, but qualified up to postgrad, DH private boarder, also qualified to post grad. One child in state, one in private. We support the proposal.

@Katyakat - there will be no 'massive impact on the state sector that will damage all children. We are talking about a tiny minority of a small number (6% of children) of privately educated students that will move to the state sector because their parents cannot afford whatever increase is set by their school.
Also, all this talk of SEN children who likely would not qualify for a EHCP so their parents chose to opt out of state education because they can afford private school fees and are looking for small class sizes - very good - but again personal choice and sufficient funds to opt out. Pay the increase. Prior to this anti labour campaign on MN there was absolutely no interest in SEN children in private schools - suddenly they are of great importance as a possible reason to overturn the policy decision.

Yeah. But still only if you’re on a good income…

Just trying to show there’s not such a clear moral line between private schools and grammar/selective state schools.

It would be hypocritical to be very in favour of jeopardizing the existence of the less well heeled private schools via introduction of VAT, while not at the same time critiquing the financial advantage that is rife in the families that use the selective state school sector, plus the homeowners moving to live closest to the OFSTED ‘outstanding’ non selective state schools

In case you’ve not already had a response to your Surrey query (I’ve not RTFT):

“Surrey County Council has admitted it does not have enough state school places to accommodate children transferring from private schools, following the government’s introduction of a 20 per cent VAT levy on independent education.
Forecasts obtained through a Freedom of Information request show that for the September 2025 intake, there are expected to be no vacancies available for Year 9, 10, or 11 students, and only limited spaces in younger year groups. The shortfall comes despite estimates suggesting that around 2,400 children in Surrey will be forced to switch from fee-paying schools as a result of the VAT charge, which takes effect next month.”

bmmagazine.co.uk/news/surrey-runs-out-of-state-school-places-for-private-pupils-as-vat-raid-bites?amp=

I would consider it but if I have to pay for it plus VAT I may be out off.

No not at all. Only if it’s an elbow sharpening course taught in Latin than otherwise I don’t see the point. 😂

Thank you for proving my point 😃

You do know that 6% of a large number is also quite a large number, right? And of that 6%, more than double the predicted number have already left...do you think places for those children are plucked out of thin air? Or, have class sizes been increased in order to accommodate them...I'll let you figure that one out.

Do you know how long it takes to get an EHCP? Could you cope with your child being out of school for months, and sometimes over a year, due to insufficient provision whilst waiting for that EHCP?

You quite simply do not have a CLUE what you're talking about - do your research.

Actually they’re both - roughly half independent schools are registered charities which means they can’t operate for profit and must show a public benefit.

Catchment areas don't need to exist. We can move to a lottery system so that any child can apply to any state school - as long as they can undertake the necessary journey. This already happens for some popular state secondaries and it works very well. Parents can't buy their way into the school via housing as the furthest offered places can be miles away, and someone living next door can miss out.

I agree with @velodrome. Whilst I appreciate we don't want children having longer journeys to school, the current state school system is just as unfair as private education in a lot of cases. Distance and catchments should be abolished and a lottery system should be put in place for schools in the same town.

I agree. It shouldn’t just be private parents paying out. It’s spiteful that a piano lesson in a private school is subject to VAT - but if you had that same teacher for a piano lesson in their house, it’d be VAT free. Pure spite. I don’t know why people are just standing by and thinking this is ok. Wait til this spiteful government come for you!

i don’t know anyone who supports it. Even those with children in private schools are quiet. Of course private schools should pay tax.

Oh I don't know. I guess my friends and myself fall into that demographic and we agree with the policy.

Of course, the Labour government (which I voted for, on the grounds that the Tories were even worse) has commissioned a report from an academic who thinks schools shouldn't take children to museums and art galleries because they need to concentrate on things which are relevant to the children's lives, e.g. visiting a football club. They are also removing funding from a scheme which paid for Latin teaching in state schools. Disappointing all round. I thought education was about opening minds and expanding horizons.

This is precisely why I oppose taxing educational choice. State schools are subject to political meddling. I live in Wales where it is a one-party state, elections never change anything. If state schools (with the encouragement of the Welsh Government) near me start doing the things listed above, or throw safeguarding away and invite Stonewall to rewrite their policies, I want the ability to send my child elsewhere. I can't do that if there's no alternative - monopolies always lead to poorer outcomes.

I may of may not be able to fund private education (with or without VAT) for any kids I have in the future. But it's a possibility (I live in a cheap area and earn a decent wage in a blue collar occupation) if I limited to one child that two parents earning could manage it. Adding an extra 20% onto fees will just yank up the ladder further so that it will decidedly be out of reach.

Dc have EHCPs. I have no idea why you're assuming they would be out of school for a year whilst waiting for one to be implemented. That would certainly be very much the exception in my area.

And of course being out of school does not mean not being educated.

That's a lot of 'spite'.

How should parents without the money for private education - aka the vast majority of parents - feel about private education being tax-free?

Excellent, and great for YOUR DCs...sadly I'd say that's the exception, and it can take a very long time (re-read my post, I said months and sometimes over a year).

You're taking your singular case, and assuming that's how it is everywhere, despite saying "in my area"....

So again, an opinion based on a singular example, rather than actually doing any broader research