Labour’s plans for VAT on Private Schools

[Busydadof2]

The Labour Party has proposed introduction of VAT on private schools.

In the scheme of things the money they will bring in from this is tiny compared with total expenditure on state schools, while it will drive more burden on the state system as some parents leave private schools. I think this is a populist ploy to get traditional Labour voters to vote for what is in any other sense a centrist party.

Have you considered signing this petition to make sure the policy gets scrutinised and the weight of public sentiment against it is known?

Change.org petition: Stop Labour from adding 20% VAT to private school fees and forcing kids to change schools

www.change.org/p/stop-labour-from-adding-20-vat-to-private-school-fees-and-forcing-kids-to-change-schools

Various perspectives from the signatories of this vote come to mind and resonate with our own situation, including this: “I work in a state school with over 30 in a class and oversubscribed. My 2 kids went or go to private schools and we have sacrificed loads to do this. We are NOT wealthy, many of the kids at the school I work at live in bigger houses and have much more disposable income than we do. We chose to send our kids to private school rather than live in a bigger house instead of our semi detached on a main road. We holiday in the UK every year and I work full time. I buy my clothes on the high street or in charity shops. Many parents at the school my kids attend are in exactly the same situation. I agree there are some very wealthy parents there too and the addition of VAT will not even make an impact on them, they will pay it without batting an eyelid. All this will do is push the kids like ours back into an already oversubscribed state system, increase class sizes even more and create a bigger divide as private education will become truly elitist.”

It's an absolutely ludicrous policy. The average fee for a private school pupil this year is £15,200, the VAT on which comes to £3,040. The average spent on educating pupils in the state sector is £8,000. If this is how badly the rest of Labour's fiscal policy is thought through, we are utterly screwed as a country.

I don't understand your point here.

If a pupil leaves the private sector, instead of a "hoped for" net income to the treasury of £3,040, the treasury will need to spend £8,000 to fund the child's state school place.

There are "really nice" people on both sides. The "VAT protestors" are looking none too squeaky clean either in some of the things they have said. They give as good as they get. However, you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

The pitchforks comments are head and shoulders above all other comments I've seen that fall under the 'ridiculous' category . It doesn't need to compete in the 'unpleasant' one to stand out.

Once again, bullying happens in every school and any school that denies that is lying. If you have bought into the 'not in nice private schools' PR, then more fool you.

£8k variable cost. £11k if you include fixed costs and overheads, which it would be reasonable to do. Especially for any school that has to "welcome" more than a tiny handful of children, it'll be "now we need a new classroom".

"we" aren't abusing children or laughing about bad outcomes for children.

If there wasn't more prevalent, more severe, more sustained, and less well-handled bullying in SOME state schools compared to independent schools, there wouldn't be hundreds of tearful M&Ds in the parents' campaign. But you probably know their circumstances better than they do.

It depends how you define abusing children. There have been horrible comments on here about children from council estates and underprivileged backgrounds. Disgusting snobbery. You must have seen them but choose to ignore them. I have seen just as much derision for state school children by posters actively not wanting their own children to mix with them in state schools. If people have a different perspective and think children switching sector will be fine in state schools, why is that such a terrible point of view? You do realise that state schools are considered good enough for more than 90% of UK children?

Look at the track record of sexual abuse and institutionalised bullying in SOME (big name boarding) private schools before you start lecturing on SOME state schools. Again, that doesn't quite fit your narrative though, does it?

Your posts are characterised by hyperbole (e.g.pitchforks coming for you next) and there is a clear agenda behind them. This makes any other arguments in your posts seem contrived and manipulative.. It reads like you have a toolbox of groups that you like to draw upon to drive your agenda - SEN accommodation, bullied children and now tearful M&Ds. How well do you know their circumstances if they are not your own? Or are they just useful to you making your political points?

@HelsinkiSummer i quite enjoy @MisterChips contributions on these boards, both for the informed economic analysis as well as the occasional injection of humour.

I would be interested in knowing why you think this is a good policy for education more broadly, though. From your most recent posts you are clearly anti-private. Are you just in favour of anything that undermines private education regardless of human cost, or do you think this policy will actually deliver something worthwhile for the educational sector more broadly?

You do realise that state schools are considered good enough for more than 90% of UK children?

They're not considered “good enough” by many people though. If they were, why are so many people calling for increased funding?

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2023/dec/10/eva-wiseman-the-real-reason-why-schools-are-failing

Well let's rephrase it as they "have to" be good enough. That's your audience for the most part. Surely it is not too difficult to understand that they may have a different perspective.

How many leaps can you make in one post?

I took issue with @MisterChips hyperbole as I consider it to be an insult to people's intelligence. However, each to their own, I suppose.

I am ambivalent about the policy. There are many other political issues about which I have much stronger feelings. If VAT is imposed, at something more like 12-13% after offsets and some school cost savings, parents will either pay up or not. There could be a bit of a shake up in some parts of the private sector but the market will restore efficiency. Some children may change schools but children are generally adaptable. Adults struggle more with change.

Thank you.

Is your support linked to it making money for treasury? The income gain already looks doubtful, and if vat were at 12-13% (not something labour have suggested so far) I don’t see it bringing in much, certainly not enough to fund the proposed agenda. Fewer would be forced to leave precipitously, but less potential tax take, and given the decrease in enrolment we have already seen this year it does seem like there are limits for many to absorb additional costs. Many are simply not joining private when they otherwise might have.

cost of living is squeezing fee paying parents in 2 ways: eroding disposable income while also driving extraordinarily high fee increases. Not a plea for sympathy, but just a cold hearted assessment that many fee paying parents might be nearing the end of their ability to absorb further increases regardless of whether government or economy / school imposed. If you back the policy on ideological grounds then yay less private education. If this policy is meant to be a means to an end (which is the official labour stance) then I would be far more sceptical of what it will actually deliver monetarily.

Some kids are not as adaptable -SEN ones for example (talking from first hand experience )-my son has got a place in small state primary for example now -whilst with supports put in place it is already pretty apparent that he will just not cope in massive state secondary-and at the same time does not fit profile for SEN schools either (even if they had spaces)-so unless some kind of absolute overhaul happens to secondary state schools which will not -he will have 2 options come secondary -no education /school at all (despite us living very close to one of best secondary comprehensive in England and being able to get a place there -he will not cope there )or small private- -so in my particular situation a small private school will not be a luxury but a necessity to get education for him -and as a parent in many SEN parents groups already that is the issue across most -SEN kids sort of can cope in primaries (not all but it’s not that bad )-but come secondary -that s it unfortunately -I won’t speak for all who are currently in private but through SeN groups know parents who’s kids are In Private schools -those I think will be first ones to be badly affected by that VAT as they already doing impossible to a degree just to get their kids education

Surely the answer is to improve the state schools so people don’t feel the need to use the private sector though? The attitude “well they have to be good enough for us, so you should have to put up with the dreadful conditions too” is petty.

It’s appalling that some people can access great state schools and yet others have to put up with failing schools which harm their mental health and have dreadful outcomes. A service fully funded by the taxpayer should be equal for everyone. It shouldn’t be a postcode lottery.

My child has a talent in music and has a music scholarship. Our catchment state school doesn’t even offer GCSE music. How is it right that some state schools have great music facilities, and others have barely any? Is it right that the only way my child can access facilities to stretch their talent is for us to pay private school fees? And now people think we should be penalised further through the tax system for that. Some families can access a great provision funded by the taxpayer.

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth. The point I made, quite clearly I thought, was that 90%+ plus children have state schools as their norm, either through choice and/or economic necessity. I said nothing about the quality of state schools. I was simply stating a fact.

If that 90%+ increases very slightly because of VAT on state schools, the overall picture is broadly the same.

I clearly stated I am ambivalent about the policy and your response is "Is your support..." Very strange interpretation of what I said. The constant drawing in and twisting of what people say is such a common theme on these threads. I'll say it again. I am ambivalent. I care much more about other political issues. I think you will find that many people feel the same.

You said “You do realise that state schools are considered good enough for more than 90% of UK children”. That suggests you are commenting on their quality.

“I care much more about other political issues.”

I 100% agree with you on this. There are surely bigger things the electorate should be worrying about than the 6% of children in fee paying schools. It’s a shame the Labour Party aren’t focussing on other more pressing issues. Surely the majority of the electorate are more interested in things which affect them on a day to day basis.

[‘Ambivalent’ suggests you view pros and cons, so I am interested in what you view as the pros.

if you don’t want to be ‘drawn in’ then no need to respond - you are posting quite a bit about a political issue you think unimportant, so you will understand my confusion.

As I have said before, it is pointless to add VAT to private school fees if there is no net gain.
If Labour gets in they should address the following:
Stop multi-academy trusts paying huge sums to their leaders who don't actually teach. Stop multi trusts buying Teslas for the whole leadership team.
Stop multi-academy trusts gaming the system by bringing in senior leaders to teach lessons from other schools in the trust when Ofsted come in.
Move schools back to LEAs as schools run by LEAs have better Ofsted ratings despite multi-academy trusts gaming the system.
LEA run schools also have less teacher turnover.
Stop multi-academy trusts keeping back as much as 35% of the money (according to recent figures in the news) that should be spent in schools.
LEAs used to run hundreds of schools in their area and had one leader that probably earned about £200,000, with a headteacher in each school. Now the leader of Harris academy earns over £450,000 for for only running 52 schools and they have marketing, HR, finance managers earning £200, 000+. Too much money is being wasted in education. There are some academy trusts only running 15 schools and the leaders are also earning £300,000+.
Stop punishing schools for excluding children whose behaviour is so bad that they make teachers want to leave the state sector.
Build more behaviour units so there isn't a waiting list.
Exclude poorly behaved students who disrupt other children's learning once there is alternative provision.
Provide better SEN provision for milder cases.
Have a better mix of schools-so some small secondary schools that are the size of a primary, which may better suit SEN students.
Start funding SEN provision better.

The state sector needs to improve so people don't feel the need to pay for private education.
Taxing private education does not solve the problem and it could make it worse if the government loses money from it.

I was actually posting about MisterChips hyperbole about pitchforks coming for people and the fact that there was a lot of mudslinging on both sides. I didn’t comment on the actual policy because I find it much less irritating than some of the attitudes on here. Also I am much more worried about all the children in Gaza than I will ever be about a small number of children being displaced from UK private schools.

I totally agree with this. So much hyperbole and bad faith takes about something that affects a tiny number of families who will still have access to education at the end of the day, and who will have substantial enough extra cash to enhance/augment that education.

I don't want to comment any more as everything just keeps getting blown out of proportion but really -

despite a lot of the comments here, the majority of kids in private schools don't have SEN, aren't on scholarships, do have very wealthy parents, many of whom inherited money rather than worked extra hard for it.

And many people do move house to try to get their kids into 'better' state schools and spend money on their house rather than private school fees as it's probably a better investment anyway long-term.

But in general, agreeing with the tax doesn't make someone a child hater or spiteful, seeing private school as an optional good/service is a valid viewpoint, and of course everyone wants what is best for their children. Finally, working really long hours to pay for private school does not in itself mean you're a better parent. Many people consider having a more balanced life including as much quality time as possible with their children to be of utmost importance.

But surely agreeing with a tax that may cost the government more money that it gains and also make some children's lives more difficult makes no logical sense.

Hence the feeling on the part of some that the policy is driven by spite or envy or for its 'dog whistle' value.

If private schools were banned completely, that would make more sense because it would be fair to all, and would be in line with socialist thinking, but that's not practically possible and would bring churches, religious groups and assorted others into the argument, forming a very powerful resistance.

So we end up with a half-measure that does more harm than good and raises no funds.

If it happens, it will be bad law.

@Runemum You don't fancy a job as education secretary do you? You'd do a better job than the last 20 people who have occupied that position.