Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 6

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuation of previous threads to discuss VAT on independent school fees.

But also for families knowing they need to move should you be offered a place at a state school you like you have to take it quickly. There is no waiting that side. Schools funding terms doesn't help in that scenario as the place would be likely to go. There is no other way to describe the introduction of VAT mid year other than mean and cuntish.

Nothing new but I do think we all know it was what Rach from customer services (SORRY, accounts) would like to be true.

@HooverIsAlwaysBroken - I think your analogy is good but there is also a category of “I am just not paying the VAT” out of principle which falls into the prepayment category. Because I did the maths and for expensive schools a lot of people could have invested that money and gotten a good return and paid tax instead. But they chose to send it to the school to invest tax free deliberately, returning the spite and helping the schools with those funds.
And you will get the same with the middle classes, they will just send kids to state schools for longer or opt in to years 9-11 private only instead. There are ways of perfectly legally not paying this VAT and making the State pay for it vicariously.
So whoever thought this was a good idea needs sacking.

I've dug around to find the missing figures. And you're right - things were all over the place post covid.

It was really very stable until 2020. Then there was a big drop in private in 2021 (parents annoyed at those private schools which didn't do remote learning? Maybe job losses?) then big rises 2022 and 2023 (parents panicking at missed work?), stable 2024, then the big 2025 drop.

I suppose that it could be that it was mainly children approaching a level who entered private after covid, and that cohort has now gone through. It's annoying that the detailed government stats stop at 2020. Until then, they even show how many in each year for each sector, which is great)

I guess we'll need to wait until September for more data.

“Nothing new but I do think we all know it was what Rach from customer services (SORRY, accounts) would like to be true”

However. as a career politician she should know more about human behaviour, because that is her job.
And if she believes that private school parents are grifters purchasing privilege then it logically follows that they won’t just sit back and not react in a grifty way. So at least carry the logic through.

And they haven’t just frozen tax rates. They lowered the 45 per cent band to 125kish. Which means that instead of 500k tax payers paying that in 2022-2023, they are hoping for 1.13 million 45 per cent rate payers in 2024-2025.

@strawberrybubblegum - is there any way of finding out how many SEND kids entered private education after Covid. Because there is a whole generation of kids who struggled with Covid. I know for some kids with SEND, being home was actually good, but many could not then transition into main stream.

The 11,000 versus 3,000 January figure already shows the government under-estimated how many kids would move from private to state. However, the January figure is also misleading because most people won't move their kids mid-year. When labour came to power in July 2024, most parents were already committed to pay the autumn fees. They were then tied in for the full academic year unless they really couldn't afford it. We really need to wait until September to see how many kids move from the private to the state sector when parents have more choice. And then we need to wait a bit longer, because if parents have children in Year 9 or Year 10, they won't move them until they finish their GCSEs.

Inflation relates to average costs, but specific businesses will be overly exposed to the impact of specific cost rises that run above the average of inflation. Teacher pensions are a good example of a cost that has risen above average inflation and only affects schools.

competition amongst schools will affect certain schools more than others - our school doesn’t have steinways but as a boarding school they do need to invest regularly in dorm maintenance to ensure they compare favourably with other options. They also invest heavily in send training for teachers and programming for send children and families, as this is a differentiator for the school - it isn’t all about making the experience more elite.

No one denies competition is a factor with some fee rises, but it doesn’t explain above inflation rises in ‘no frills’ private schools who are simply passing on their costs.

Yes and those who decide not to start at natural start points, reception or year 7 and sixth form etc but would have used private without the 20%.

That's an interesting question. I've pulled the data out of the ISC reports (which are lovely and consistent in the data they gather) since I couldn't find government numbers breaking it down to the same level. So this only relates to the ISC schools, but should still give an idea.

There's obviously the context of changes in SEND generally. Here's what I found of gov figures for SEND. The reporting changes, so it starts in 2019.

I think the gov ones are for both state and private eg for 2021 but it's possible that it's only state (It doesn't matter too much, to understand the context)

It's interesting that the percentage of children with SEND who are at private school has been increasing. The last row shows %SEN at private / % SEN overall. Certainly a trend to monitor as the 2025 numbers come out from the government (and beyond 2025).

Thank you @strawberrybubblegum.

explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/elective-home-education/2024-25-autumn-term

There is also the relatively new home education that has to be monitored. 111,700 at Autumn census 2024. Quite a lot of kids too now.
The stats on SEND there would be interesting.

111,700 EHE is much more than I expected!

Yes @strawberrybubblegum - it is far from “niche” using the terms of another poster, anymore.

The good news is that Jamie Oliver is joining and campaigning for SEND now with a new series starting on Channel 4. Hopefully that means the Government will have to start listening and spending more on Education.
As always, lots more going to NHS which benefits middle aged and elderly more, whilst schools are having to sack teachers potentially, warning in TES.
The kids and youngsters gave up a lot during Covid and the harms are still being felt. It is time to prioritise the young and the kids.
The Government will never listen unless celebrities get behind campaigns to force changes and public opinion.

This whole VAT bonanza was a massive distraction from the underlying issue which is they are failing all of our children, whatever school they are in, private, state at home (if not a genuine choice but forced through by inadequate local schools especially for SEND).

Very happy to hear about this. Jamie Oliver is a proper hero of mine because he has still made a difference in how people think about school meals, even decades on.

So important when shamefully, for increasing numbers of kids that’s their one reliable or their one hot meal each day. Not saying that schools and local authorities have fixed this issue by a long stretch, but expectations of what’s healthy and what’s possible have been raised by his campaigns, which is really important

Couldn’t agree more. Good re JO but the distraction part. So little on what’s happening with education.

@EHCPerhaps - also please try and not worry about the human rights angle. It is in the Good Friday Agreement. We cannot actually leave and be the only ones to do so in Europe to join Russia and Belarus! It is all more BS.
What may happen is a concerted effort to sit down with other signatories all over Europe to talk about provisions affecting all countries.

I think it's a good thing to do the work to analyse how the ECHR and other agreements are affecting us - positively and negatively. You can't have sacred cows which no one dares look at or challenge - surely we've all realised that by now.

The ECHR was created in the context of WW2 having just ended - where state actors had committed terrible abuses. The intent was to protect individuals from states abusing individuals' human rights. But what it's introduced is a positive obligation on states to promote human rights rather than just not violate them, and also introduced an interpretive power, so that courts are required to read legislation in a way that makes it compatible with human rights even if it isn't what Parliament intended.

Now maybe these are good things and maybe they aren't - but it certainly seems reasonable to think about it, especially given that it's preventing the government from tackling immigration, which seems likely to become an even more pressing issue in the next few decades.

That's why we have a government: because laws do need to change as the world changes and also as we see how the existing laws are playing out.

We're not alone with these issues, and I suspect we'd be pushing at an open door with many European countries to introduce reform.

I'd far rather we could reform the existing institutions and the way the law is implemented than withdraw from ECHR. But large institutions always try to increase their remit, and push back at attempts to curb their overreach. It could take too long to change it. But we should at least try.

And without allowing the tail to wag the dog, I will certainly be considering the outcome of the private school VAT challenge.

There's no point in us going round in circles again about whether it does genuinely breach their human rights or not - that's been done pretty comprehensively on here already. But for me, I see it as breaching the intent of that article.

If you believe the policy is vindictive (as I do), then it's straight breaching it, but even if you don't believe that, then it certainly doesn't follow the requirement for governments to promote rights. Which is the requirement which has caused so much trouble for controlling migration.

I do see ways in which the ECHR has forced state institutions (notably the police) to act for victims where they wouldn't have otherwise. But I also see how it's been used cynically, against the UK's interests.

So the private school challenge is a litmus test for me. If european human rights law doesn't protect the children of an unpopular group from direct (possibly vindictive) harm by the state, then it's failing pretty badly. And that certainly justifies a very careful look at the balance of cost/benefit of keeping it.

Having said that, if it succeeds, it will open the floodgates for legal challenge over every tax.

I think either way, the ECHR is going to need reform.

In terms of SEN funding I think we need to look at what actually improves educational outcomes for children. There's no evidence I can find that pushing more children with learning disabilities into mainstream is actually beneficial- comparing attainment changes over the years suggests it's harmful. The current system is hugely expensive whilst not improving educational attainment- saying we should spend more on children and less on middle aged & older adults is ageist and illogical- I look after many adults with leaning disability and serious medical problems. The vast majority of kids with SEND will survive to be adults and many will still have the same issues then.

I know CAMHS is a mess but so is adult and old age psychiatry - young doctors don't particularly want to do psychiatry and child and adult services are drowning in autism and ADHD referrals.

We need to have a proper conversation about how much it's appropriate to spend on SEND. Budgets are finite, and frankly I would prioritise child safeguarding and social work over education. Spending £100K a year of educating anyone isn't justified & I suspect a lot of that cost doesn't actually go on educational activities.

It looks like this will happen. Various European countries have written a letter to the ECHR, who have responded they want suggestions for change. With nothing as taboo.

Migration is pushing that change and finally people are realising that staying as it was will mean countries start leave it due to voter pressure.

The reality is simply that mass international migration is an issue for many European countries and a collaborative approach needs to happen. If migrants cross to France with the intention of eventually getting to Britain, but get stuck in camps there for years, it affects France just as much. A European wide collaborative approach plus online IDs (we did the Covid passports online and it worked) will likely be the way forward and the countries where these migrants come from will also have to accept them back, or eg aid/trade will be withdrawn. As a European wide power working together rather than against each other, you have a much greater chance of success.

I hope we don’t do the digital ID stuff but I think there will be change to the ECHR.

Obviously I agree that climate migration is going to be huge political issue to address and we need to be globally working together to tackle the causes and consequences of that.

I worry this is like Brexit all over again with sleight of hand being played over British people’s economic struggles and fears, for individual personal political advantage by the still internecine Tory party hierarchy. I can’t really forgive that level of political self interest after the economic disaster that we have all been put through as a country after Brexit.

Obviously the Tories are looking to come back to electoral popularity by apologising for Liz Truss’ premiership (!) and now announcing things like this ECHR review, but with so much fighting going on between themselves that they give credibility to wild exaggerations. Jenrick and Badenoch going along with it. Once again, Party before Country. How can voters be seriously expected to reward that?

At a time of massive instability and economic struggles in the UK we need the Tories to be an effective opposition to work constructively with the government to progress urgent economic, social and climate agendas and also to hold the government to account where its failing. Not to waste time pushing for damaging divisive policies that won’t have the claimed benefits and if they happened will cause absolute havoc and harm to millions of ordinary people in all kinds of issues nothing to do with immigration.

Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights will not reduce illegal migration because even if the UK decided to withdraw from the ECHR, state authorities would still not be able to deport any migrants they want to third countries because of other international law, treaties and obligations outside the ECHR:

Legal migration is a political issue within the powers of democratically elected governments, and for example the Tories’ approach allowed exceptionally high numbers of people to legally migrate into the UK.

People risking their lives to cross to England on small boats can already be legally processed and not allowed to stay. Nobody needs to rip up human rights protections for everyone in order to achieve that.