20% vat on fees

[namechangedforthisone35]

IF Labour get in and IF the 20% does get added to fees, how many private school pupils will be moved to state? I have three kids (one not school aged yet) and in private school. One of many reasons because I didn't want them in a class of 30. I couldn't afford the vat increase so would have to move them but then that class of 30 becomes, what, 40?! In an already strained and unresourced system?!

Wwyd?

Y - I'd have to move kids to state
N - I'll pay the vat

I'm a teacher who has worked in indie in the past and state. And when I worked in an indepedent, we had parents who sent their kids there because they can get a means tested bursary and grandparent help for that but they couldnt afford a house in a good state catchment. They recognised their privilege.
But it highlighted to me that the state sector is just as unequal to private in its own way, if not more. I have more chance of my children getting a bursary to an independent school than I do of affording a house in a catchment for a good school.
This policy will cut the less wealthy private school attendees out of private schooling. It will affect the bursary funds as private schools try to remain viable. In other words, all it will do is create a bigger gap between the super wealthy and everyone else and reduce what limited social mobility that there currently is.
If Labour were really inclined to sort out inequality in schooling then they would look at the catchment system which is far more divisive than a few kids going to private schools. That's before we even look at whether the figures really work once you take into account the extra costs of educating the children who will leave/not enter the independent sector (and it seems questionable whether they will even actually gain money over this policy at all, according to different projections).
My children go to state. I went to state. My husband went to state. We couldnt ever afford private. I still don't think charging VAT on private schools is a good idea.

Where is the evidence for that? That is not what my teacher friends are telling me, but they are secondary. Has there really, really, really been a significant decrease in people having children? Are the state primaries that I couldn't get my eldest into, who's first year of university now, because he was part of a 'high birth rate year' and it was a 'bulge year' and there was no room for him in the 'bulge class' really much emptier? I see no evidence for this in London and the South East where I am (and a significant proportion of private schools are and new housing is being built). Why are pupil numbers falling? Where are the metrics?

https://www.ft.com/content/d98ad9fd-0b5d-49bc-be51-8a606acd0917

I wouldn't want to and wouldn't have the time as work full time. We would put fees into tutors for maths/english/sciences/classics/history, fund DDs first house purchase etc so none of our money would go to the state school and why should it, we already pay taxes.

I can't read that FT link unfortunately.

But according to this source https://schoolsweek.co.uk/pupil-number-forecast-revised-up-but-steep-decline-still-expected/#:~:text=Today%27s%20data%20shows%20the%20DfE,cent%20lower%20than%202023%20levels.

Its been revised down to a fall of 7% in secondary schools by 2032. So I guess there would be room for the 8% of privately educated pupils to join, just about, if that privately educated figure is accurate (does it include all the non COE faith specidic schools?). Let's hope the LAs haven't closed or merged all the slack by the time Labour get around to doing this then (if they ever do). And let's also hope there's the disproportionate room in the church schools, grammars and elite comprehensive catchments where all those families will be moving to, as they sure won't be nicely distributing themeselves across all schools, including the 'requires improvement' ones.

I don't get the argument that paying for SEN kids to attend private schools somehow elevates the choice. It is still purchasing a luxury not available to all.

Our nearest state secondary school has almost 25% of students with some sort of SEN need. In an ideal world the school would be properly resourced for this. If this luxury tax on private education is applied then perhaps there will be more money available.

One can live in hope.

We’ve had 2 in private from the start.

Eldest starts Y7 in September.

we can afford the VAT (plus annual rises of 20-30% as recently seen) but it prompted me to look at the local state which was excellent. I appreciate it everyone has an excellent state school option. We will likely choose that come September. We are in catchment and should get a place.

of course thanks to Labour some other kid (further out of catchment) now won’t get that place. Ditto with our youngest when he follows.

Not sure if that’s what Labour had in mind?

We not only won’t be paying the VAT but now won’t be paying anything at all for education.

oh and the foreign students at the expensive borders presumably don’t pay VAT anyway as non resident? 🧐 Has this been thought through…..?

”I don't get the argument that paying for SEN kids to attend private schools somehow elevates the choice. It is still purchasing a luxury not available to all. “

I recently read an article in one of the main stream papers about how middle class parents fighting local authorities for SEN funding are bankrupting councils… so that will only get worse. Which means less funding for old people and other services as well.
It is always the case that if you apply sudden taxes on a sector that there will be unintended consequences. I think the reality is that this policy is going to cost the tax payer money and we should at least be honest about that.

@Araminta1003 I can't see the issue with a parent, any parent, campaigning for what is their right for their child. Middle class or not.

If councils are being bankrupted then they should be better funded. Surely raising taxes on luxury goods ie private schooling will help with this in the long term.

That is particularly abhorrent reporting. Councils are being bankrupted by a reduction in central government funding.
Middle class parents might be enforcing their childs right to an adequete education but why on earth shouldnt middle class children be able to access education. The horror is that children without parental support arent getting basic education. Not that middle class parents are ensuring it happens.

But if parents want children to have a good education, why don't they just pay for it?

It will have more impact on prospective new entrants than those already at the schools. Boarding schools will have more Chinese kids, Day schools will struggle more.

The number of Chinese students in UK schools (and universities) has dropped for the past few years.

@PuffPastryFluff where is this magic money pot? Because £1bn (which is an optimistic expectation for net revenue) isn’t going to touch the sides for education let alone the other underfunded services. The UK population currently faces highest tax burden in 80 years - realistically options are limited for raising revenue without big changes in productivity.

yes, we should be able to meet the needs of all students, but the reality is we are failing far short, with Sen children facing a disproportionate impact. It is also a reality that me taking financial responsibility for my SEN child has benefits for the children in the state school they would have gone to - both in terms of freeing up resources as well as lessening disruption. I don’t pretend to send them private for benefit of the state, but the reality is the state does benefit.

Yes you pay twice fees and tax and leave a space in state

SEN situations arent about buying a 'good' education, they are about about accessing an adequete education.

Being middle class doesnt mean you can afford private school fees. When newspapers say middle class in this type of reporting, they mean parents who arent actively disadvantaged. So parents who speak english, parents who dont have their own SEN, parents who are degree educated and can understand the system. They dont mean wealthy. Its very poor reporting. The SEN system is in total crisis and its nothing to do with people making sure their child gets occupational therapy that they need to function.

The send system hasnt broken because parents who could afford private education are making councils pay for normal private schools, although there are indeed some children who are in normal private schools due to their SEN as its the cheapest option.

The vast majority of SEN provision is through your mainstained state secondary and that can cost up to 20k.

Then there are state special schools costing up to 100k and they dont let you buy a place in them..

Then there are charities some of which wont take self funders.

Which is irrelevant as lots of child free people are also paying those taxes for schools they don’t use

Not irrelevant at all. It determines burden on the state

It’s more money for education as a whole if someone pays fees and tax

It’s why other countries use actual rebates

It will put a disproportionate amount of stress on places in the best state schools. No one is going to go from a private school to an underperforming sink school. House prices in those catchments will go up even further.

It’s utterly irrelevant. Taxes in this country aren’t hypothecated. No you don’t get a rebate for paying school fees. Just as you don’t for paying health insurance.

Other systems recognise state burden and encourage use of private to relieve state burden

You may not be aware of it but it happens and works well

@Labraradabrador I totally accept that the system is floored. What I don't buy is the rationale that paying for provision for a small number of 'privileged' children benefits the rest in the long term because you are not using resources. What benefits the rest is everyone being in the same boat educationally.

In a world where @PuffPastryFluff were in charge then there would be no private provision but that's a fantasy world. I'm prepared to accept a world where paying for that provision is a luxury and taxed as such. Maybe the money raised by those taxes will go to improve provision for the many.

Nb I also don't buy the argument that the current system isn't a level playing field so we can't create one. We could. We could make all schools comprehensive and put checks and balances in to mitigate differences between demographics in particular areas. Pretty soon people would be investing time, energy and possibly their own money in support of local provision. Because that's all there would be.

Obviously at this point I'd encourage you to vote for me as PM in the next election but as I'm not standing I'd give this support to Mr Starmer who appears to be making baby steps towards reducing inequality in education.

I don’t understand this argument.

For wealthy parents whose kids aren’t already in school, yes, they are in a better position to move to a good catchment.

But if a child has already started, and then needs a state place, the application will be from the parents’ current address and the LA may well allocate to any school with a space, not necessarily the “best” school which is probably full with a waiting list already

No it won’t.

That shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how school places work. Children needing in year places or to join outside a normal entry point will be offered a place at a school with vacancies. If they turn that place down they get nothing. The council has met its responsibilities by offering a place.

It may shrink catchments at reception level a little but school rolls are falling in KS1 and are forecast to do for years to come. There is space for the state sector to absorb increasing numbers.

Finally the vast majority of people will simply pay more to keep their kids in their independent schools. This isn’t going to cause the massive move you think it is.

Off you pop then as it’s irrelevant in the UK