Will VAT on private school fees lead to a partial collapse of the sector?

[mids2019]

Will VAT on school fees coupled with cost of living drive a lot of parents from the private sector or will the majority absorb the cost? Are the numbers that potentially end up in the public sector going to offset any gains to the treasury through VAT?

Labour are working at about 4-5% transfer rate to the public sector but is this an underestimate?

What do you think the significance of percentage of votes won is for VAT on school fees specifically? Surely only that if Starmer feels insecure about that or the potential for voters to swing somewhere else next time, he will try all the harder to deliver on the policies they had in their manifesto?

If they retain every single vote they secured this time, there is a good chance they would lose the next election- they have benefited from strong dissatisfaction with the incumbent party, a fractured opposition and low turn out. Simply delivering their manifesto isn’t enough- they need to win over a greater share of the broader electorate (the majority of which is sceptical of Labour) if they want to remain in power. The larger outcomes are what matters, not a tick box exercise against campaign promises. On that basis, they better be damn sure this policy is going to be a net positive for education, and i don’t think they have properly examined the nuances of implementation nor the financial outlook.

It really isn't. It's a function of FPTP when you move beyond an essentially two-party system. We've seen repeatedly what it did when the Lib Dem vote got higher; it's now more affected as we now have a more multi-party electorate than ever before.

In the Brexit referendum, Leave got 52% of the success measure (individual votes).

In the 2024 General Election, Labour got 63% of the success measure (number of seats).

They were very open about their strategy. If the success measure and marker of legitimacy was individual votes, they would have pursued a different strategy.

the majority must be okay with this or they would not have been elected.

Labour do have a big majority, and they will be able to get policies through, but it’s worth remembering that they only received 34% of the vote. 66% of the electorate did not vote for them. 34% of the vote is hardly a ringing endorsement of their manifesto and proposed policies.

I'll be the first to agree that Labour's majority is broad but incredibly shallow. But I think you're deluding yourself that this policy will have much impact on their prospects in 2029. It's pretty popular across pretty much all demographics; it will be quick to implement and impacts very spread out, it coincides with a rapid decline in the state pupil population, and Labour just managed to get a candidate elected in the constiuency with the highest proportion of private school parents in the country despite a hugely high profile media and targeted ground campaign against it.

As ever, I get that a lot of people feel very strongly and personally about this policy. But it's hard to see how even the most botched implementation would be an electoral game changer in the way that NHS performance, net zero or planning are likely to be.

I don’t think 2029 is relevant. The policy will either be implemented or not long before then. They’ve said they’re going to do it immediately. My comment was in response to a poster saying that the majority of people are ok with the policy because Labour got elected. The point I’m making is that the majority of the electorate didn’t vote for Labour or their policies. Far from it.

Yep, fair enough, my misinterpretation.

Just because 66% of the electorate did not vote for them doesn't mean that 66% are opposed to VAT on private school fees. The vast majority of people in the UK won't be directly affected by the policy and generally people tend to care about things that affect them directly where politics are concerned.Only 7% of DC are in private education and of that 7% there will be a significant number whose parents are wealthy enough that it won't really affect them and so they won't be too bothered by it. Those statistics alone illustrate that only a very small number of people are likely to be strongly opposed to the policy. More importantly, Starmer clearly feels strongly about it and that alone suggests he will do his best to get it through and he has the clear majority of seats to do this.

Does he feel strongly about this? I’m not sure he feels strongly about much of anything other than pursuing a path to winning control. This in particular feels like a policy to appease more left wing elements, and I have seen nothing to suggest he is personally invested in making this happen.

Well now he has clear control so we will see if he can walk the talk. IMO he was a bit guarded in the run up to the election because he knew he had a lot to lose if he messed up and so said as little as possible - barrister mode.

People keep talking about the SEN exemption as if it's a done deal, but the detail is very patchy. As I understand it, you can't exempt types of people from paying VAT (eg 'parents of children with an EHCP') - only types of service (eg 'education provided in special schools'). I'm sure that official special schools will be easy to exempt. Beyond that, the indication we've had from Labour is that they would only exempt EHCP students in mainstream private schools where the local authority is paying the fees - that is, 'education where the LA have named a private school in the EHCP because no other school can meet the child's need'.

Those cases are I think fairly unusual. From what I've read on here and elsewhere, local authorities generally say in an EHCP that either a child needs a special school (therefore exempt) or that a state school can meet their needs. If the parents then choose to fund private school themselves, because they don't agree that a state school can meet their child's needs, then (from the very little that Labour has said) these parents would not be exempt from VAT.

So, you will have self-funding parents of children with EHCPs in private schools paying VAT. Plus you will have all the children who might be eligible for an EHCP but haven't applied before because their parents have chosen private education and don't think an application is worth it, either paying VAT or now applying for EHCPs to transfer into state. Plus the very many who wouldn't qualify for an EHCP but have SEN that makes a private environment easier, either paying VAT or transferring into state because they can no longer afford the fees.

That's not a very broad exemption. I know that those in favour of this policy will say tough - most children with SEN don't have the luxury of choice, and I totally get that. But if we're talking about the political acceptability of the policy, any potential legal challenges around fairness, and the general media coverage once this starts to get real, then I think there could be some quite difficult stories for Labour to deal with.

@potionsmaster I believe that is correct. Independent Special schools where an EHCP is requirement will be exempt. As they should be. From my own experience for DC with an EHCP at tribunal the LA will offer to fund a small independent because it is cheaper - they just offer smaller classes etc rather than specialist teacher, on site SALT, OT etc. But the independent will be named as placement on the EHCP and is state funded.

Even if all parents with DC with SEN applied for and were granted an EHCP it is highly unlikely that the EHCP would name independent (so would have no impact on VAT) if DC continued to attend independent or even if the DC qualified that any resulting EHCP would not be considered to be zero funding in the state sector ie not worth the paper it's written on as SEN can be met from school devolved notional budget.

Parents may fervently believe that their SEN child needs an EHCP to survive in the state sector (and may well be right) but that doesn't mean that they will get one and even after fighting for years might find it's not enough.

I haven't met any parents in my long journey who would use their children's well-being as political capital.

Parents talking about removing their child from a setting in which they are making progress would do well to pause and consider the best interests of their child - presumably the reason why they chose to place them in independent without the battle. If you move them the battle will not be shorter. It will still take years and impact on the child and wider family. And then the idea of moving house? What are you thinking? No parent would do this when caring for a child with significant needs as a protest.

You would cut your hours or retire earlier because you don't need to pay school fees? This screams that you don't have a child with significant needs.

For context DC1's specialist placement failed aged 15, SOS!SEN started JR proceedings and we had a bespoke package of SALT/OT/CAMHS but once he went into the adult system it all stopped. I had to give up work when his placement failed 8 years ago and am still his full time carer and will be til I die. DS2 was in the system from aged 3. His primary didn't meet needs but because he had an EHCP and I couldn't work anyway due to DS1 and had a bespoke package for HE supplemented by internet school. He is very academically able and being out of school allowed him to be robust enough to attend selective 6th form and he is due to start a mechanical engineering degree in the autumn.

It's all just bluff and bluster about money.

Has everyone here (who is against this woeful and ill conceived policy) joined the action group on Facebook called Education Not Taxation: Parents Against School Fee VAT?

There is a lot of very good work going on behind the scenes of this group to prepare a legal challenge (amongst other practical things) and there is also the link to a vital petition which you may wish to put your names to.

To those for the policy.... you don't understand the damage this will cause to all children, state schools will be swamped, already frazzled state teachers will be pushed to the edge, SEN pupils will suffer massively, perceived increases in revenue will dwindle, everyone will loose ultimately.
The damage has already begun.

Yep already a part of ENT and we are working so hard behind the scenes to get Labour to engage with us.
It is a great group, lots of guidance and information.

Private schools plus private school parents must be one of the most powerful lobbies in the U.K.

Even on this site you can see the same (seemingly new) posters repeatedly posting the same points and only active on private school VAT threads.

Will be interesting to see if Starmer can withstand it.

I've been on this site for over 12 years thanks. I'm on these threads more at the moment because it something that matters to me.

the policy was recycled from the Corbyn 2017 manifesto. It has been a long-held dream of the hard-left of the party to attack private schools.
The centrists in the party seem to have agreed to the policy in the interests of party unity. Starmer will have quite a hard job holding the disparate elements of the party together but I suspect this policy is quite far down his personal priority list.
They've pitched it as one of their 6 flagship policies so they need to be seen to be doing something. However if the ECHR were to rule against it, I suspect many of the grown-ups in the party who can see what a can of worms it will open will be glad to have an excuse to shelve it.

I don't think you have a clue. Just how many families fight for suitable small independent school placements. Because their children cannot cope with larger (state) schools (no matter how fabulous those schools and how hard the schools work to support SEN students).

I don’t have a child with SEN nor am I invested in private schools. But I am just so incredibly uncomfortable with singling out certain schools and children in this way. I wonder if it is because I spent some of my childhood years growing up
abroad: it seems to be a very British thing to be allowed to be so openly against private schools. It’s basically discrimination.

I am not at all comfortable with this policy pushing more and more children with SEN into Home Education as the only possible means. It’s cheaper for the state and very sexist as well, because women will most likely have to cut back on their careers and pick up the pieces.
We all know LAs are struggling with the cost of SEN children already and this policy is most definitely not the answer. For SEN kids in private schools it’s a disaster. The Labour Party really must do their homework better on that aspect.

I am the same and couldn"t agree more.

It seems extremely unfair to punish this group of people because you deem the way they choose to spend, money, educate or as some say buy privilege unacceptable.

Why do these people get punished or forced to put more money into the state sector and others do not?

Surely anyone private tutoring, moving house to a 'better' catchment area, paying for private specialist SEN healthcare or therapy, paying for their children's private healthcare is purchasing a privilege or advantage others may not be able to afford for their child but they are not demonised in the same way.

I do not see how this policy achieved levelling up.

I have a pretty good clue. I teach in a state primary school which has many children with SEN for whom it is absolutely not the right setting but who cannot get a place in a special school. It's a deprived area and there is no way these parents can afford private schools.

I also have a DC with autism who is barely accessing school even on a part-time basis. I'm in the midst of trying to get an EHCP. No way can we afford private school fees either. We've looked into online schooling but even that is several thousand a year.

As I said, private school is not an available option for the majority of DC with SEN.

According to the ISC : The number of children with SEN in private schools at 111,336, or 20.0% of pupils. Of these, only 7646 had an EHC plan, so around 103000 did not. Only 46 ISC schools are registered as special needs schools.
Government data for England states there are 1.6 million pupils with SEN - around 18% of pupils. Of these, only 26% (434,000) have an EHC plan.

Exempting registered special needs schools and/or exempting pupils with an EHC plan would still leave the majority of families of children with SEN in independent schools paying VAT, i.e. tens of thousands / approaching one hundred thousand.

I'm really sorry to hear that @lavenderlou . But do you think that having more children with needs which are difficult to meet in the state sector, now entering the state sector, and needing the same things (SENCO time, TA time, family support officer time, teacher time during interventions, physical resources, whatever is relevant to each child etc) will improve the situation for your children? Or will it simply increase the pressure and stretch the resource further? I agree that it would make things more 'equal' - but only by making the situation worse, not just for those children transferring out of private, but also for the children with SEN already in state.

@Lebr ,

‘The number of children with SEN in private schools at 111,336, or 20.0% of pupils. Of these, only 7646 had an EHC plan, so around 103000 did not.’

I think it is really important to define SEN.

The private secondary I taught in had loads of SEN on the register, but only about 20% had a formal diagnosis. Pushy parents can easily get schools to put their children on the list. We had three classifications: EHCP, diagnosis of (say) dyslexia but not severe enough for formal diagnosis and ‘keep an eye on’, normally due to a ‘spiky’ cognitive profile and poor school performance.

The tertiary classification was often heavily parentally influenced as most parents don’t want their child thought of as just not that bright and, of course, SEN is linked to special consideration in examinations (extra time, rest breaks, private invigilation in a separate room etc).

It is a constant battle between private school SENCOs and pushy parents to not add to the list, as with a massive list it is hard to support those pupils genuinely in need.

The reality is that most private schools are very good at supporting mild and non disruptive SEN (mild dyslexia, dyspraxia etc) but have no interest in anyone disruptive, for obvious reasons.

In addition, of course, one reason private schools are so expensive is that the parents of high performing children (in large sets, say 24 pupils) cross subsidise the weaker pupils and SEN who tend to be in the smaller weaker sets (of 10 to 14 pupils). This isn’t much discussed, for obvious reasons.

But why is it so important to define precisely - (fwiw mine do have formal 'nhs' diagnoses) but any child that needs additional help in the private sector is going to need additionally help in the state sector too.

Or does SEN only count if it's labelled as this or that?