Flooding of state schools by ex indie students fails to materialise

[zaxxon]

An interesting story, given all the doomsaying we saw on here last year following the VAT policy change. It's great news that more families received their first choice of school this year.

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

@CowTown taking a guess you are applying for a very high performing private school vs average private school. I fully expected with CoL everyone is weighing up average private schools and only paying out if the school is better than the local state option hence why applicants for the top private schools are up - people want results for their money.

In a year or two I would love to see stats on number of applicants at the top private schools vs average private schools and how they have changed since pre vat.

@CowTown I was commenting primarily on 11+ applications, sorry if that wasn’t clear. I know very little about the 6th form “landscape” other than that it’s different from 11+ in many respects.

We’re applying to 3 local state 6th forms. School responses, per my post, are “record applications” this year.

My pint is that from my perspective and experience over the past few months is that there appear to be many families jumping ship from private to state at 6th form, and there are record applications for the same number of state places as previous years.

It's been a trend in recent years to move to state 6th forms.

Seems like this year’s applicants are beating previous records.

Is that for all 6th forms? I've not read anything to suggest that but happy to be proved wrong.

Several posters are missing the point. It is far too soon to tell and current data is going to show no change. The government have also deliberately applied this in a way where it becomes very difficult to see any negative impact in the short term

There are a group of parents who choose private education as the default and their children will remain in the sector regardless of VAT. They can comfortably afford the fees, 20% is not really that much in the grand scheme for them.

The other group (like myself) are those that have chosen private for a specific reason with no commitment to remain in the sector throughout their child's education. A lot of parents at my DC small prep school fit into this category - we have chosen this school because of lower fees compared to through schools and wanted our options open. We can afford the fees but make noticeable sacrifices to do so and 20% hike is significant. The majority can make changes to their finances to fund the VAT until the next natural breakpoint - I only know of two children leaving the school mid way through primary due to VAT and they are still staying until the end of the academic year.
In our school, the trend previously was for these parents to eventually choose private secondary because of career advancements making secondary fees an option with the same level of sacrifice. Historically, around 10% have moved into state sector but these parents all apply for state secondaries and always have done. We are certainly seeing change as 40-60% are now switching sector. A few current Y6 moved house within the past 18 months specifically to be in catchment for particular schools, 5 families (and counting) have done this in my DC Y4 group.

There are also those who are currently in state primaries with the intention of moving into the private sector. They also will likely be applying for a state place.

So from what I can see, the net impact and allocation on state places last week will remain similar. Some who are in private and have moved into catchment will get places on distance so there has been changes in catchments of some schools but there could be other explanations - we can only speculate when the government refuse to collect data.

As a PP said, the VAT policy is not going to have a major catastrophic impact on the education sector. In our area, the competition for the higher performing schools has increased and will likely stay at this level or increase further.

There are enough state places for every child in the country, there is no disputing it. I predict some on the outer edges of catchments of popular schools are going to lose out on their school of choice in years to come as more switch sector/never start private. The bigger question is whether the VAT raised will actually offset when factoring in the cost of educating those that switch/never start private education and the cost of SEN provision that is going to be needed for those who have now been priced out of the sector. If ends up costing more (which is my prediction for the long term), what was the point in the policy?

I don’t have a view on the whole country, I can just say from our personal experience, that two of the local state 6th forms have communicated to us that they had record applicants this year, and we have not heard back from the third school. Places will be more competitive this year—the two we’ve heard from are clearly trying to manage expectations at this stage.

The 6th forms near me have had similar numbers to previous years & we didn't have more register for the 11plus test. I expect it's normal for there to be fluctuations depending on location & birth rates so don't think my experience can be extrapolated any further.

And as I already said certainly in London there is a trend for private dc to move to state 6th forms already. Plus even without the VAT hike, mortgage rates & COL may push more into state.

There are enough state places for every child in the country, there is no disputing it. I predict some on the outer edges of catchments of popular schools are going to lose out on their school of choice in years to come as more switch sector/never start private. The bigger question is whether the VAT raised will actually offset when factoring in the cost of educating those that switch/never start private education and the cost of SEN provision that is going to be needed for those who have now been priced out of the sector. If ends up costing more (which is my prediction for the long term), what was the point in the policy?

There's also the big drop in birth rates. I think the point of the policy was to make future tax hikes in other areas more palatable, same with wf allowance.

This is not true at all. A lot of people in France choose private if they want a religious element in the education of their children. If you want some catechism (as an example but same applies to jewish and muslim faith) then you go private. First communion and such like are done at school.

I fail to see how it will make other hikes more palatable though. It has affected such a small number (which is the only reason they have managed to implement it) - the general public are not suddenly going to accept tax hikes because a small percentage of rich people pay tax on school fees

Or Parisians. I have a middle class friend who sent her DCs to private in Paris because the local school was shocking. They weren’t rich. Or thick.

@morechocolateneededtoday I think more in just when a politician is questioned about X tax increase they can say we've spread the load eg VAT on fees, everyone is paying their fair share etc.

because a small percentage of rich people pay tax on school fees

I thought many weren't rich though & couldn't afford the increase hence the exodus to state?

Those who are able to pay fees without much sacrifice are very likely to be rich, I don't think anyone is disputing that (or ever has).

Those who are not rich will leave and go state and as a result will not be paying fees or vat!

But everyone isn’t paying their fair share!

Rich parents actually using state schools for their kids make no additional contribution.

Those scraping together the fees for their SEND kid to go private (forgoing holidays, a nicer car or whatever) do have to contribute extra when by definition their kids aren’t taking up a state place.

I’ll ask again (since none of the supporters of this policy ever answer): why not tax actual wealth rather than using a private education as a proxy for wealth? Especially given the former could raise enough to make meaningful improvements to state schools when the latter will not.

I really dislike these sweeping “most other European countries” assertions.

France, Germany, Belgium and Italy - countries in which I have lived - all have free, academically selective high schools which perform better than most private schools. Most parents with clever NT children choose these schools.

These countries also have private schools catering for a range of other needs. Around 10% of German children for example attend private schools. ie more than in the UK.

If the UK still had grammar schools countrywide many parents who currently choose private schools would opt for grammar schools.

This is what we're been saying. Hardly anyone at the kids school is leaving and a hand full of pupils can easily be absorbed into local state schools. The vast majority of parents aren't stretching to afford the fees, they are pretty comfortable.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Secondary_education_statistics#Public_and_private_secondary_education

First off private schools were being used as a tax loophole, I know multimillionaires who owned schools who didn't give a crap about them or education in general, it was recommended by their accountants that they buy them for tax purposes.

Secondly, how are you going to tax actual wealth without a mechanism to do it through? People will just funnel money through shell companies or buy yachts offshore and claim they're business expenses. Wealth is also different to money.

On top of that it's also where do you draw the line because you don't know what people's disposable income is. My % of disposable income is extremely high because I live a very modest lifestyle, but someone who owns property in Florida and owns 3 luxury cars and sends their kids to private school could easily have less than me even though they make a lot more.

There has to be something tangible in the middle, like some kind of tax (see also farmers).

“First off private schools were being used as a tax loophole, I know multimillionaires who owned schools who didn't give a crap about them or education in general, it was recommended by their accountants that they buy them for tax purposes.”

Errr, even if this was widespread (spoiler alert: it’s not) what does this have to do with the current debate? You do understand that it’s parents of pupils that are being taxed more, not the schools themselves?

“Secondly, how are you going to tax actual wealth without a mechanism to do it through?”

You’re right. If only we had mechanisms for collecting progressive taxes such as income tax, CGT, stamp duty, IHT etc etc.

Oh, hang on a minute…..

🙄

But everyone isn’t paying their fair share!

Who cares, it's about perception Is that really news to you?

Rich parents actually using state schools for their kids make no additional contribution.

Surely they pay taxes?

I’ll ask again (since none of the supporters of this policy ever answer): why not tax actual wealth rather than using a private education as a proxy for wealth?

I'm not a supporter but it's quite hard to tax the 1%