Will parents move to areas closer to Outstanding/Good schools rather than pay VAT

[LadyConfused2024]

Sorry for the long message. This really? Do you think many parents will sell up/rent near a better school and take their kids out of private school rather than pay the VAT fee increase?

These are purely selfish reasons as I want to move and think that house prices are going to go up a lot in areas with good state schools.

Thanks in advamce.

2 children through private school from 4-18 costs far more than £200k. Even assuming the children only go to private secondary, a fairly average/low fee would be £20k. Many are far higher. Plus the VAT means it's now £24k. 7 years for 2 children at that amount is over £330k. Not only that, the cost of buying a house is normally not condensed into 7 years. A mortgage term is often longer, making a huge difference to monthly income.

Sure, parents would need to provide evidence that the reason they live in a rented property when they own property elsewhere is for work-related reasons (or something else substantial) rather than motivated by the desire to live in the catchment of a certain school.

I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't. People who want their kids to get a good education and who can't afford private school fees or don't want their children to be educated privately generally either make sure they live in the catchment area of a good school and/or volunteer at their local catchment school to make sure it's the best it can be and then arrange to fill in any gaps in what the school provides through our of school activities. And with the introduction of VAT, there are a few more people who fall into the category of not being able to afford private school fees.

If you're moving from a nice area of London out to the home counties your new nice house may be cheaper than your old one. We bought an equally nice property £500k cheaper.

Agree it’s worth checking but where we live in St Albans (same as you?) there are two highly sought after secondaries. One of them (Beaumont) absolutely does allow this - I know a number of people who’ve moved into catchment (buying a second place though I think renting possible too), but then move back to their out of catchment family home once they’ve got the eldest in.

As long as you are genuinely living in a catchment property at the relevant time (ie not using granny’s address or renting a studio flat but not living there) this is seemingly all allowed. Am not sure if this makes the school “idiots” but a lot of people are very unhappy about the catchment tourism that results!

Sandringham is much stricter.

Plus you have an asset that has increased in value at the end of all the expense. Win win.

With school fees you just have to hope you got value for money in terms of the experience and educational outcome.

I’d let the dust settle a bit first and to see the results of the legal actions. A lot of schools are going to close and a lot are going to merge, which can change the whole school really.

@Another76543 I'm talking about the VAT, not the main school fees. This thread is about parents not being able to afford the extra £4,000 or so a year on VAT which is still cheaper than moving.

It’s always happened. Or they discover religion.
What’s wrong with kids from wealthier families attending the same schools as those from differing backgrounds in any case ? Surely mixing like this widens childrens’ experiences.

But you make a decision based on the total.

You might even be able to afford the VAT but decide that the overall price is no longer attractive.

There will also be a percentage of parents who never really considered state education, start having a look because the fees are going to hurt, and realise that there are some fantastic state options that make you wonder what you have been paying for.

So then your calculations are based on the total sum saved.

If you can’t afford the education tax, then you can’t afford the whole fees. I’m not following your logic.

Yes but you look at the overall saving. Being pushed out of private education because you cant afford an additional £4000/year for VAT means a saving of £24000/year/child (+inflation). The house appreciates in value whist they are at the school and can usually be sold more than it was bought for. Even if breaking even, it makes better financial sense for many

You're missing the point that many families cannot find an extra £4K per child (and that's at the low end of secondary fees). That's £8k a year for 2 children. Many families do not have £8k spare, on top of increased mortgage costs and cost of living etc. Everyone has a tipping point where something becomes unaffordable or where they think the expense is no longer worth it. When they decide to make the switch, they're not just saving the VAT, they're saving the entire school fee.

To be honest I (and the majority of others I’ve spoken to about it) aren’t getting too aerated by it. The government has to find money from somewhere. Wouldn’t be a good look if they cut UC and yet allowed private schools, millionaire farmers and extremely wealthy pensioners to avoid paying their way like everyone else. We can’t have improved public services without money. Unless of course you're happy to see further cuts to schools, libraries shutting to fund the above.

To go into this length to secure a good school place shows really strong parental engagement (and some financial means which can be handy for fundraising) so many schools will welcome such cohort. Of course not all, but still many

It's not just about affording it - it's about wanting to afford it at the price.

And yes, people have limits, especially if it's coming out of taxed income.

Schools like engaged parents - but not too engaged ime.

And at secondary you don't actually have much contact with school anyway.

Not sure fundraising is a thing. But does mean students signing up for the overseas trips and no issues suggesting they get a tutor or two if needed pre exams.

The IFS have already said the tax raised will make no difference to public services. And that's by their own optimistic calculations. The tax will be minuscule. It could end up costing the taxpayer money. Part of the projected tax take from VAT is being allocated to free breakfasts in schools (including the children of very wealthy families who use the state system). They are taxing families (some of who struggle to pay fees even now), in order to fund breakfast for the likes of Keir Starmer's children.

I'm not convinced that taking tax from a family who scrimp to send their SEN child to a private school (of which there are many) in order to fund a bowl of cornflakes for the child of a multi millionaire is an admirable policy.

It’s just weird that anyone would put so much reliance on a Ofsted rating! Not all outstanding schools are the same, the ones here have good results because they effectively select by the way the market themselves. Both have poor send support (they don’t have many students with send) and shocking pastoral support. Neither seemed to sway the rating given the results!

I personally don't understand the obsession with OFSTED ratings either, given the things that schools get marked on and the fact that many "outstanding" schools haven't been inspected for years anyway. There is a local "good" school nearby where only 1 in 6 children manage to pass GCSE maths and English. That isn't my idea of a "good" school.

Until now, we have both been paying tax in the 60% bracket plus we pay full school fees for two children. Our children's school receives no government funding at all and we do not take the fully funded state school places that are offered to us.

As of Sept 2026, DC will be in a state school at a cost of £8k to the public sector. I will be working less hours and drop down to 40% tax bracket, paying thousands less. DH will be diverting more of his income into his pension as we do not need to pay school fees.

I would love to know the logic in defining our situation pre 2025 as 'avoiding paying our way'. As a PP has said, the IFS have backed down and admitted there is no money to be gained from this policy. Private school parents were paying far more than their share before this tax came in. Now the elite will pay extra (whilst their schools claim back tax on their vanity projects) and the rest of us will pay far far less by having our children in the state sector.

If students went to the school forecast 3/4 in maths and English, leaving with 4/5 would be a great results, better that intakes forecast 9 and coming out with 9. Progress 8 measures just that, how well students as a cohort do relative to sats results. Not all students will get 7/8/9 despite how well they are taught. Some will no matter how good teaching!

Most cannot afford private school. If I scrimped and saved for years I still wouldn’t be able to afford the fees despite already driving an old banger and not going abroad for years. My oldest is dyslexic and would have benefited from private education but like most kids with a LD state school was the only option.
If Starmer sent his kids to private school you’d still moan whatever he did, call him a hypocrite etc.

The tax is on the parents, not the school. Every child that moves into state education costs the state around £7.5k that otherwise the parent would be paying and costs the state £0. I don’t think anyone really thinks this will raise much money, and there is a good chance it could end up being a Net cost to the state. It’s about having a pop at ‘bad people’ (those who don’t vote Labour) through their children and gaining control of more children’s education so they can all be educated equally. Any other excuse Labour come up with for introducing the first education tax in the G7 and Europe is purely performative.

Bit like how scrapping the WFA for anyone not on Pension Credit has ended up costing more as so many people have now applied for Pension Credit.