No exodus to state sector after VAT added to private school fees, say English councils.

[FruitPolos]

Article in today's Guardian. Interesting to note the comments from Surrey in particular given the discussion on Mumsnet about this particular area.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/10/no-exodus-to-state-sector-after-vat-added-to-private-school-fees-say-english-councils

"Surrey, which has large numbers of children in private education, recorded a dip in the proportion of families getting their first pick of schools for September. But Clare Curran, the county council’s cabinet member for children, families and lifelong learning, said: “Surrey has not seen a significant rise in the number of applications for a year 7 state school place for children currently in the independent sector compared to last year.“For September 2025, 664 on-time applications were received from Surrey residents with children in the independent sector, compared with 608 for September 2024, a rise of 56.“While the percentage of applicants offered their first preference school has decreased for September 2025 [80.6%] compared with 2024 [83.1%], the 2025 figure is not dissimilar to the 2023 figure of 81.3%.”

There are always agonised screams about how policies that cost money to the better off will destroy us all. History shows the catastrophising rarely proves true.

@RantingAnonymously in this economic climate nobody is going to agree to prolonging uni education potentially and the cost of that. The focus is very much on ensuring as many children as possible are able to pass GCSEs Maths and English. For some it is a real challenge - just as a fair proportion do not pass KS2 SATs at expected levels.

There should be choice.

I knew what I wanted to study at an early age and couldn't wait to give up English and Maths. I was also very academic.

DD has known what she wants to do her entire life. She's not academic but is very fortunate that her skills/ability align with her aspirations. She's going to university at 16 to do exactly what she said she wanted to do when she was in Reception. Another two years of generalised education including subjects she has zero interest in would be of zero benefit.

If you look at a lot of European countries then they limit in other ways, especially via general selection at 14. If you only make the local technico in Italy then your education narrows considerably compared with the kids who made the liceo.

That probably works if they're on a course with 6 contact hours a week and 1 essay a term (my first degree course), but not if they are on one that is 9am to 6pm five days a week plus huge amounts of extra work (my second one). Nor if the university is in a small town.

And again you will see the inequality issues - parents who earn/have saved enough that their children can spend university working on their assignments, making the most of the extra curricular opportunities and potentially graduate with little to no debt.

Also the case for those who have the option of living at home because their parents happened to buy a house in the right area.

We've chosen to have one child and they will live at home for university. They're not going to have the same experience that DH and I had, but after long discussions, their feeling is better to spend 3 years focused on the course and they can have the great social life post-graduation when they are earning (and not spending a fortune servicing debt for the rest of their life).

This may be a pro-private education thread, but lots of us here are actually not private school parents. We are against disruptive, economically illiterate policies that are damaging to the economy and to children - especially when it is ideological and ignores some of the things going on in education that are affecting much larger numbers and people are blind to.

There will always be very rich people who can afford Eton without blinking. So what.

@AshKeys You don’t need to do A level biology to study medicine.

I understand that many universities have this very requirement. Eg

Imperial https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/study/undergraduate/medicine-mbbs-programmes/schoolinfo/

St George https://www.sgul.ac.uk/study/courses/medicine#entry-criteria

Brighton https://www.bsms.ac.uk/undergraduate/applying-to-bsms/entry-requirements.aspx

Not all, though. Queen Mary requires only one between Chemistry and Biology https://www.qmul.ac.uk/fmd/study/undergraduate/courses/a100/entry-requirements/

Again: why does no other country do the same, then?
Again: Greece tried this and it backfired massively, with many private schools closing.
Again: New Zealand charges something similar to VAT on private schools, but also gives a subsidy to families going private.

But, of course, never let facts and details get in the way of ideology, right?

@OhCrumbsWhereNow If you look at a lot of European countries then they limit in other ways, especially via general selection at 14. If you only make the local technico in Italy then your education narrows considerably compared with the kids who made the liceo.

It's way more nuanced than you imply.
In Italy there is a middle school and then 5 years of high school. There are various types of high school: classical, scientific, technical, artistic, etc.
Classical and scientific have historically been considered the most academic and the most difficult.
Oh, and they study Italian and maths till 18. The artistic high school won't study the same maths as the scientific one, but they don't abandon it for the last two years.

In theory every type of high school gives you access to any type of university.
In practice, some universities have admission exams and of course not many kids who study the artistic high school will want to do nuclear physics.

But I am told that engineering and economics courses are full of students who went to the "technical" high school.

Crucially, you don't have to choose at 15 what you want to do later.
Of course there will be a huge variability and some schools will be terrible.
Of course a lot of that will have to do with the socio-economic context.
But that's the same everywhere. In England we have secondary schools where students struggle to read https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2025-03-10/the-gcse-pupils-being-taught-the-alphabet-amid-literacy-crisis

in this economic climate nobody is going to agree to prolonging uni education potentially and the cost of that.

you would think that, yet more and more students are doing integrated Masters.

@RantingAnonymously - I do not know where you live, but where I live we have access to the International Baccalaureate at various schools, should our DCs wish to go down that route. For IB, you have to continue with Maths and English and an MML, do an extended essay, at least one Science and one Humanity. I think it is more work than A levels though and is aimed at the most academic all rounders.

She's going to university at 16 to do exactly what she said she wanted to do when she was in Reception. Another two years of generalised education including subjects she has zero interest in would be of zero benefit.

This is a very sad view of education. All education is of benefit, it broadens your understanding of the world

Some people are naturally specialists, and I think that’s okay. They have their thing and want to spend their time going to a much greater depth and detail than could be accomplished if doing 7 other subjects. Several members of my family are like that - they are also the people I thought of when filling out the family history portion of my DD’s ASD assessment, but that’s a whole other topic.

others (I would argue most of us) are less focused and a more generalist education for longer would probably be beneficial. I don’t disagree that the uk system forces specialisation too early for most children BUT there are others for whom it really is a good thing, and it isn’t really in keeping with a discussion on educational choice (which is essentially what the PE debate is about) to disparage someone with different educational needs/preferences.

Wiping off £9bn and then trying to claw it back via welfare cuts of £6bn does have real impacts.

Then there’s dc who are impacted with the actual policy. Both those groups will feel it.

@Araminta1003 in this economic climate nobody is going to agree to prolonging uni education potentially and the cost of that.

Maybe true. But let's not forget about all the students who have to do a foundation year (so one extra year) because their secondary school sucked and didn't prepare them for university.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow I knew what I wanted to study at an early age and couldn't wait to give up English and Maths. I was also very academic.
DD has known what she wants to do her entire life. She's not academic but is very fortunate that her skills/ability align with her aspirations. She's going to university at 16 to do exactly what she said she wanted to do when she was in Reception. Another two years of generalised education including subjects she has zero interest in would be of zero benefit

I am not sure that "my child has known what she wanted to do since reception" is very representative nor relevant - it seems to me one of those "peak Mumsnet" moments for which this forum gets ridiculed :)

English and maths provide crucial life skills. That's why other countries which have very specialised secondary schools (focused on arts, music or else) often still teach these subjects till the very end. Not everyone needs to study advanced calculus or iambic pentameters, but there is value in continuing to study English and maths till 18.

When they are very SEN and ND, it really is potentially pointless making them sit in classes they don't want to be in. There are a gazillion things that they might actually want to spend their time on.

Nobody insists that all children must study music and history till 18. Why is maths more relevant?

I have yet to find a purpose for matrices and quadratic equations... would my life be lessened if I had never been taught them? Can't think how it has broadened my understanding of the world.

I come from a big family, some of my siblings did the IB and were still sobbing over giving subjects up because they loved everything. A couple of us could not wait to get to A level and finally be able to just do the subjects we were actually interested in - and had celebratory bonfires of our most hated subjects that we had been forced to do till 16.

It's why there should be different pathways for different children. Knowing DD's focus guided us when looking at secondaries - for a child like my IB taking sister I probably wouldn't have gone with one that started GCSEs in Y9 but opted for a school that narrowed in Y10.

I detest the current obsession with STEM, especially when there aren't enough teachers. One science should still be an option - then those who aren't interested can do another two subjects they are interested in. No child today could do my GCSE combo that included 3 languages, history and visual arts subjects, unless they did some as twilight options.

Why are 3 languages at high grades apparently so much less desirable than scraping a 4/4 at Foundation level in Combined Science?

So education should only cater for one group of people?

That does seem to be the way that Labour are moving. And if you are SEN or ND or just inclined in one direction then tough. You are irrelevant because you do not conform to the Ideal Student Citizen profile and we will force you to comply.

Germans study everything till 18 at gymnasium yet still have 3 year uni degrees.

I got my first commission in art at 15 and I had been doing regular work as an artist up until I went to uni to study a STEM degree.

People in the arts often specialise much earlier than usual.

I thought most Germans do at least a Masters? Here the 3 year bachelors is still very much accepted as the norm, at least for now.

I don't know the stats now but they used to do Masters not because they had to. Uni is practically free in Germany so why not study more if you're interested and can afford it. It has very little to do with jobs prospects as they have various educational and vocational routes for those not interested in academia and they lead to good stable and well paid jobs. A bit like Italian system described by @RantingAnonymously

I should have written in past tense as the situation is changing rapidly and dramatically with the current destruction of German industry and economy. That was just an illustration of the fact that it's perfectly possible for an academically able child to study all subjects till 18 and do 3 year degree afterwards.

Yes sure @Ubertomusic but Germany still has a grammar school system in many states so only Gymnasium are doing Abitur. So it is the same stream as doing IB or getting top A levels here I would have thought - top 25 per cent or so of the pupil population. They can probably move fast at university too and I assume the uni exams are not easy to pass either.

Yes that's what I said, they're doing this at Gymnasium. You could re-join the academic pathway later on if you change your mind and catch up with the subjects, the system is much more nuanced than in the UK. Here grammars rarely have occasional places post 11+, and even at grammars children don't study everything until 18.

Having said that, they'll have to change their system very soon when they're deeper in the crisis.

PS Germany is a federal state so systems and policies vary a bit like England vs Scotland here. I was just giving a general illustration.

That they may, and some people may struggle with subjects that don’t interest them. But those things are very different from saying there is zero benefit to certain education.

I think there is zero benefit to education that doesn't engage students.

Almost 40% of students don't pass English or Maths GCSE

33% of students don't pass both English & Maths GCSE.

Fewer than 30% of these will pass resits.

Why not have wider options that actually engage students?

On MN, the discussion tends to focus on the most well known universities, top state and independent schools etc.

The reality on the ground is that despite the huge push towards uni education, the majority will never go to university.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7857/

• The higher education entry rate among UK 18 year olds increased from 24.7% in 2006 to 30.7% in 2015 and peaked at 38.2% in 2021. It fell back to 36.4% in 2024.

Even at the peak rate (Covid grade inflation), 61.8% of pupils were not going to uni.
The uni sector here is very successful and we have been on a growth pathway pushing as many kids to go as possible.
However, as a society, we need to ask about the majority, and they are not going to university. And we should be spending on getting them into work as well, I would have thought. I think it is probably quite important for long term economic growth to engage the entire population.
I feel like what is missing is a whole sector focussed on the 60 per cent and how to guide them.

I am not at all anti university etc and believe the sector to be immensely valuable but it is expensive for the taxpayer, even with the loan system.
https://ifs.org.uk/education-spending/higher-education

When people here start going on about the privilege of some parents paying for their DCs to go to uni and not taking the loans. Please remember this helps the taxpayer! The same as private school parents do. This constant dig at privilege which actually relieves the burden on the state should stop. We should be encouraging those who can to pay the uni fees, not the opposite.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/14/different-thinking-needed-send-funding-bridget-phillipson-says

Can anyone spot the plan?