Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 7

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuation of previous threads discussing VAT on independent school fees. The thread title is a headline from a Times article last autumn.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5237575-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5242586-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-2
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5280646-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-3
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5301690-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-4
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5317397-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-5
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5337850-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-6

It’s the only thing Labour have, they’re backtracking on nearly everything else.

Moving some kids from private to state is it. Some spite to appease the tax them more people and that’s it.

I don’t particularly like vaping being treated as “essential”, but I assume it is because it’s seen (or was seen when the rate was determined) as a smoking cessation support measure.

A special “middle” rate of VAT for hospitality was a response to the pandemic - there’s not a politically viable comparison here.

I agree that introducing the VAT change at the start of a school year ie in sep 2025 rather than mid school year would have been better.

Hang on, just done a Google:

Vaping products are subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20%

A reduced rate of 5% can be applied to pharmaceutical products designed to stop people from smoking tobacco and suppliers of vaping products believe that their products should be reduced rated under the same legislation. The argument is that vaping products provide are commonly used by smokers to help them stop smoking tobacco.
At the current date, there is no change in HMRC policy as the reduced rate only applies if the primary purpose of the product is to aid smoking cessation, therefore, VAT at 20% remains in place for vaping products.

So it doesn’t look like vapes are at 5% - but do link if I have found an out of date article

In the pretence of raising tax surely vaping would bring in more revenue than school fees ? And cost the state nothing as opposed to children leaving education to state at £8k pa ? They are an absolute disgrace I was ambivalent about Labour before now I actively despise them

In primary schools, the first jobs to go are certainly the low-paid ones - eg any TAs who are not direct 1:1s for children with substantial SEN. There will be more jobs going for lunchtime supervisors, but 2 hours of work in the middle of the day, term time only, will sustain 0% of families. At secondary, once low paid support staff have been cut to the bone, substantial savings can be made from scrapping entire subjects and pushing out the more experienced teachers by making life difficult for them, or not replacing them at all when they leave. None of the options are good for children or the wider economy, imvho. I know supermarkets have been finding ways to cut back on staff (but then, they also increased pay rates for those they do employ).

The reduced VAT rates for hospitality, accommodation and attraction industries were added during the pandemic to support those industries through a difficult time. The government had perfect freedom to do that. Of course they could easily have taken a similar course of action for private schools, to ease the addition of a 20% tax on an industry which directly saves the government £3.5 billion per year Why ever not?

For vaping, I'm talking about £2.20 per 10ml excise duty on vaping liquids - to align vaping products with tobacco taxes - which was added in the same Autumn 2024 Budget as the education VAT, but which will only be effective from October 2026.

I think they are going to try and “automate” state education similar to supermarkets with their automatic check-outs. I think that is the biggest risk for state education. Imagine if we end up with a situation where you have to pay up just for your kid to get enough human contact. Which is sort of the case already with the too big class sizes.

They’ve backtracked on nearly all the other poor policies. Just not this one. I can see why they are despised by many, not just on this.

If they really wanted to raise money and be fair, they should have introduced it the September after the first September after Labour took power.

Schools and families did need time to prepare and it is very unfair to think of children having to change in the middle of GCSEs and A levels. Ultimately, that can be quite devastating as different schools teach different boards, and they don’t all cover the syllabus in the same order. When I was teaching, it took a lot of work (from both pupils and teachers) to get pupils up to scratch who joined mid exam course.

The other question, of course, which is endlessly debated on this thread, is whether it is/will raise significant revenue. I think this is really hard to prove one way or the other, but we do have a whole department of the civil service who can hopefully actually extract a meaningful number on which to base the decision of whether to retain the tax.

@strawberrybubblegum ok - so the VAT rate on vaping is 20% and you are talking about an additional duty, as with alcohol and cigarettes, is that right?

If so, thanks for clarifying.

Yes, that's right. Vaping products were already subject to VAT. The government gave the vapng industry 2 years delay on the new excise duty they introduced in the Autumn 2024 budget.

Gambling also more essential.

Knobheads

What is annoying is that it shows how out of touch politicians are across the board and how they only ever try to make decisions based on paperwork by some body claiming something (to cover their backsides) rather than on common sense and real life experience.
For example, with the vaping, anyone with a teen new the vape shops had popped up everywhere some time ago and that youngsters were getting addicted very very quickly. And that the vaping industry had lobbied. And let’s not even mention the issue for council clean up and the batteries. If there were real common sense leadership they would have cracked down on this much earlier. Same with gambling. Same with screen addiction in young children. They absolutely must see on a common sense level that certain sections of society are overusing screens and that is is incredibly harmful for children. And that obviously children as human animals learn primarily from copying adults who model speech and language and pretty much everything before certain ages. It is so sad that early child rearing in this country is constantly neglected and that they are constantly allowing companies to take advantage, from crappy food pouches all the way to vaping and screens in teens.
Trying to punish private schools for mass failure in child rearing is absurd. And anyone who is a good parent whether in the state or private system must be able to see it.

The problem is that at some point the mass failure of leadership and government towards the young and our futures is just so blatant to see that some of us do want out of this particular form of society. And it is not meant as a threat, it is more looking ahead as to what we may want for the next generation, including our grandchildren. I really feel very strongly that childhood is sacred and extremely neglected and disrespected in this country and it has to change. From healthy foods, to exercise, to human interaction, to positive mental health, to community, to storytelling, art/music, all the fundamental elements of humanity start with your values as a society towards child rearing.

@Araminta1003 stating that everyone who disagrees with you on VAT on private school fees is a bad parent is pretty extreme and alienating, don’t you think?

Oh give over, she was criticising a government policy at a societal level not individual parents.

Other duties apply to the proceeds of gaming, some higher and some lower than 20%. (Link below) Also, certain services linked to gambling do attract VAT at 20% eg admissions charges to casinos and membership fees of gaming clubs

www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowance-excise-duty-gambling-duty/excise-duty-gambling-duty-rates

And anyone who is a good parent whether in the state or private system must be able to see it.

The word “anyone” has a meaning.

No @SheilaFentiman - I do not think there is any point in scapegoating private schools for mass sociatal failure towards children. And at the same time doing nothing to improve state education, and in fact, as @Walkaround - it is getting worse in state schools. We should all be fighting for all our children, however they are schooled. So if you are passionate about children and Education then yes, you should not let this Government fob you off with pointless malicious hate tax.
Why let these muppets divide us as parents?

I also genuinely want to know where all the many newcomers to our country sit in this class system.

I got my FOIA results back, trying to get some insight into whether/how many more pupils are taking up state secondary places as opposed to independent places.

TLDR - it's a limited snapshot but the figures suggest numbers accepting independent school places for Y7 entry are more than 21% down on previous years.

I asked our local authority for:

• the total number of secondary applicants for each of the last 8 years (I wanted to include a year completely unaffected by Covid); and
• the number of those applicants who indicated in the CAF response form that they were taking up an independent school place, rather than the state place that had been offered to them.

I've then converted the figures into percentages, as the pure figures will be affected by fluctuating/falling birth rates.

The figures reveal that:

• This year, 2.6% of applicants said they were taking up an independent place, compared with 3.3% of applicants last year.
• 3.3% is also the average number from the last 8 years of state applicants taking indy places.
• I think this represents a 21% decrease in the numbers going to indy based on this metric (stats not my forte so feel free to correct me if I've gone wrong).
• This in turn is likely to under-represent the actual reduction, as there are undoubtedly pupils who were in private prep schools up to Y6 and whose parents have now decided to switch to state. These stats give no insight into figures there. I wonder if the ISC will try to capture that information from individual schools, ie Y6 attrition rates this year compared to previous years.

I'm sure these stats are imperfect for other reasons (as as been pointed out ad nauseam, we can't be sure that the whole effect is due to VAT when there are other factors at play such as COL crisis affecting family finances etc etc). They also don't capture any Y6 pupils (this year or in previous years) whose parents made no state secondary application at all and whose children are going to independent or are being homeschooled.

But they're an indicator, and they do rather support what many of us have been saying for some time...

This in turn is likely to under-represent the actual reduction, as there are undoubtedly pupils who were in private prep schools up to Y6 and whose parents have now decided to switch to state. These stats give no insight into figures there.

Why wouldn’t the figures include these? They would have been applicants to state (honestly, I would expect the majority of prep school parents in the past to put in a state application as well, cos you never know about eleven plus etc)

From these stats there is no way of telling how many of the total applicant numbers come from state primary schools and how many come from independent prep schools.

I’ve just been given the total applicant numbers which will be affected by birth rate and net immigration figures too.

So any increase in the numbers of pupils switching from independent to secondary at Y7 is impossible to unpick, even though these pupils are included in the total applications.

I agree it’s likely that in past years as now most prep parents will have applied to state schools too, even if they fully expect to continue with independent school. That’s why the acceptance rate is key, and what I set out to capture here.

It's certaibly an interesting metric @icouldbevioletsky but a few things mean the eventual decrease in private participation is likely to be less significant than that 21%:

1.Did they count the CAF responses for previous years as they stood end June or the September total? Some parents might not yet have given up their state place but still will

2.Has the total number of applicants applying to state as a backup really changed in line with birthrate changes, or did increased certainty this year mean that more of the children who will eventually go private applied for a state place than would have in previous years?

3.Is the change in birthrate the same in both private and state sectors, or more pronounced in one or the other? (This could actually shift the percentage either way)

4.The children who didn't apply to state as a safety net in previous years seem like a 'safe' group who definitely won't change to state. So a given percentage of those-who-applied-to-state changing to go private becomes a lower percentage change in the whole private sector year group (although I agree with SheilaFentiman that most probably do)

5.You said that 3.3 is the average over previous years, but how much does it vary?

It's a big increase though! We'll find out more in September.

Thanks @strawberrybubblegum, I knew you could be relied upon for thorough analysis!

To answer your points as far as I can:

1.Did they count the CAF responses for previous years as they stood end June or the September total? Some parents might not yet have given up their state place but still will
The response said that the figures were from the end of the CAF process, which is the end of the summer term, with the exception of this year's figures which were taken as at 26 June. So I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference if we waited until the end of this term. I think schools manage their own waiting lists after the end of term so the LA wouldn't have information on any declining state places for indy after that point.

5.You said that 3.3 is the average over previous years, but how much does it vary?
Leaving this year aside, the percentage ranges from 3.0 to 3.6.

It's an interesting question about whether the birth rate has varied as between the indy and the state groups, though my gut feel is that even if it does vary it won't be enough to make much of a difference to the overall figures.