SHOULD PRIVATE SCHOOL VAT BE ABOLISHED? FOUR PARENTS BATTLE IT OUT

On 1 January, the government’s new tax on private schools came into effect. The flagship policy change, announced in July 2024, removed charity relief status on private schools, increasing their VAT by 20 per cent.

This 20 per cent tax hit private school parents, whose fees rose by thousands of pounds a year. According to Government data, since Labour introduced the VAT, 77 private schools in England have closed.

Since then, families across the UK have been campaigning to have the policy abolished. The case was brought to the High Court by the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which argued that children with special needs, or those seeking religious faith schools or a single-sex education, are being discriminated against.

Today, after a months-long battle, the High Court dismissed this appeal, ruling that Labour’s tax on private schools will be upheld.

But is this policy unfairly harming children who need extra educational support, or is it levelling the playing field for a majority of state school children? Here, four parents share their reaction to the news.

‘It’s time this nation ended its bizarre fetishisation of private education’

Alison Phillips, former editor of the Daily Mirror, parent of a teenage son in a state school

Recently, I stood on one of those playing fields of England on which it is said the Battle of Waterloo was won and an empire was founded. Beyond me, between the cedar trees, lay six rugby pitches, a perfect athletics track, two cricket pavilions, four football pitches and a row of tennis courts.

Inside a spruce modern building was a swimming pool, a state-of-the-art gym and a suite of music rooms. My son, 15, and his friends, from an east London state school, were there to play rugby. They piled off a school minibus which has been kept on the road over many years with a succession of cake stalls and second-hand uniform sales.

Now people will clamour to tell me that my characterisation of that private school – which charges £25k per child per year – is not the norm, and many are smaller, more humble places. And they’ll contest that the judicial review, which has been fought, was to defend the tax break for schools offering support for children with Special Educational Needs and for faith schools. And for those parents, I have some sympathy.

But, let’s be frank, this legal challenge was really a bid by all private schools to continue dodging VAT in a way forbidden if you’re selling handbags, fast cars or other trinkets of the wealthy.

Read Next: Private schools lose High Court challenge over Government’s VAT on fees policy

The case was backed by the Independent Schools Council, which represents 1,400 schools including such places as Harrow (alumni: Lord Byron, Winston Churchill and, erm, Laurence Fox), Winchester College (Anthony Trollope, Sir Antony Beevor and George Mallory) and Brentwood School (Frank Lampard and Jodie Marsh).

And I’m delighted it has failed. It’s time this nation ended its bizarre fetishisation of private education – something enjoyed by just six per cent of children (two per cent in Wales). And which has propped up centuries of inequality, depriving us of meritocracy and landing us too often with mediocrity at the top of our national institutions.

Instead it’s time to focus on bringing the best quality education to the vast, vast majority of kids, with the opportunity to recruit and retain high-quality teachers, repair crumbling buildings, reinstate subjects and cultural activities lost during austerity and ensure kids are learning with full tummies. Let’s sort that first, then we’ll get back to you on the cricket pavilions and six rugby pitches.

‘My autistic daughter cannot cope in a state school – now her extra support is under threat’

Ana Boulter, BBC presenter, parent of a daughter with special educational needs in private school

This judgment has a financial impact on our lives but also an emotional one. Our daughter has SEND. Her security, well-being and school career are under threat from a political policy, and that means we can never ‘relax’. We are always waiting for the day when we may have to move her.

She cannot cope in a state school – her autism means that it is simply not possible. In her private school, she is doing so well and she is achieving her potential. To know that your child’s outcomes and mental health are being politicised is devastating.

The policy has created huge stress. The imposition of a 20 per cent extra on any bill is huge, and whilst our school has passed a percentage on, cuts have to be made by the schools. The net result is that no one goes untouched. Staff are leaving, her friends are leaving, and extra support is under threat

My daughter is 13 and, at her age, she should be worrying about who her favourite pop star is and if she’s having a sleepover with her friend. To have a 13-year-old worrying about politics, her school security and her future in such real terms is unforgivable.

Following this judgement, I have lost all faith in the Government and their regard for humanity. To knowingly impose a policy that has so negatively affected children in all school environments is something I never thought I would see. To have such little regard for human life, the needs and aspirations of all children, and not just the famously talked about 93 per cent of state school children, shows me that they will stop at nothing to get what they want – and that is scary.

I question how Rachel Reeves could have pushed forward with a policy she knew would make no money but would harm so many – to hear in the court case that she was explicitly told not only the damage it would cause but also the huge numbers of children it would disadvantage and for her to then go ahead – who does that? And she is a mother.

My hopes are that the judges can see that this is not only a violation of human rights for the children in the independent sector but it’s a violation of parents’ rights in all sectors.

‘If you choose private education as a parent, it’s because you’re buying an advantage for your kid’

Charlotte Ross, journalist, parent of a teenage daughter in state school

My daughter, 15, won a music place at a good state school. I’m very pleased. I can definitely see the benefits of private education, I just don’t think the government – especially a Labour one – should be essentially underwriting such a deeply unfair system. And if you do choose it, be honest, it’s because you’re buying an advantage for your kid.

There’s a simple reason most people decide to send their child to private school – it rolls the pitch in their favour in multiple ways: bespoke, arguably superior education, with state of the art music and sports facilities and chef cooked meals, but also by hothousing them through exams and into the best universities. That’s what hard cash can do, and state school budgets can’t.

It offers access to a lifelong network of old boys and girls, and their parents, which helps deliver the kinds of leg-ups, seed funding and discreet nepotism that no amount of meritocratic striving can.

But even then, once they’re through the doors that remain locked to so many, they still benefit from the innate board-level bias towards the privately educated across all the major sectors in British society. From their CVs to their confidence and the secret omerta that smooths their progress while denying so many entry to the higher echelons – or certainly making it an uphill battle once you get there.

It boils down to a life choice about how to spend your money, assuming you can access that much in the first place, and I don’t for a minute judge people for making that choice – the spoils are real, and who doesn’t want the best outcome for their child?

The real question is this: should a Labour government be prioritising the education of the seven per cent who, by definition, are wealthy enough to make this choice in the first place? The state’s obligation is surely to secure equality of outcomes – the same chance for every child. Given that Keir Starmer’s Cabinet is now made up of ministers whose educational backgrounds reflect society for the first time ever, I think the answer is clear.

‘Families have been thrown into chaos – the ‘rich vs poor’ messaging has been divisive and harmful’

Caroline Pennington, based in Suffolk, parent of three children in private education

I was state-educated myself (and the first in my family to go to university), and my three children went to state primary before moving to an independent school from Year 7. So, with experience of both, I know firsthand that the stereotypes are far from the reality. All our experiences have been fantastic.

My eldest is now in Year 13, sitting her A-Levels and planning to study engineering at university. My twins are in Year 11 doing their GCSEs. Their mocks started on 6 January. So when the Government announced the introduction from January 2025 — mid-academic year — it was an unbelievable decision. It has come to light through the court case that the Government was warned by senior advisers of the harm of a January date, being identified as the ‘most disruptive’ of all the times they could have implemented this. They went ahead.

Regarding our three, we couldn’t have moved them even if we’d wanted to—different exam boards, different subjects, coursework already in progress. Schools advise against it. The impact on these years in particular is huge.

So I joined the Education Not Taxation campaign group. I couldn’t sit back while families were going to be thrown into chaos by a policy that clearly hadn’t been thought through. The manifesto pledge and subsequent communications, I believe, sold a dud to the public, pitching independent schools against state and even trying to pitch ‘rich vs poor’ with divisive and pretty harmful messaging. The reaction it has created on social media has been vile. I’m just a parent juggling work, home, and life — but I care deeply about education and fairness.

This policy is deeply flawed. The High Court case has exposed how ministers were warned it would force pupils to move; their own projection was of 54,000 pupils into the state sector in the first two years, which would bring zero financial benefit to state education.

It would close schools – 100+ were factored into decisions, with all the consequences of that on the children, staff, and communities. They knew that SEND pupils would be hit hardest, given that families are often making the choice not out of privilege but necessity and that 25 per cent of independent school families fall under the average household income, meaning it is far from a policy ‘taxing the rich to help the poor’.

This isn’t about politics — it’s ultimately about children, it’s supporting parental choice, and ensuring that decisions about education are made responsibly, not recklessly or driven by ideology.

2025-06-13T12:52:16Z