Equal education for all or a step in the wrong direction?
Nimi Sira
The controversial introduction of VAT (Value Added Tax) by the current Labour government to private school fees, ending the tax breaks previously received, has certainly caused uproar. With most of Britain’s elite attending private school, including 65% of top judges, 52% of diplomats and 44% of the Sunday Times Rich List, it is unsurprising that some of Britain's most powerful are unhappy with this financial hit.
This eruptive change intends to utilise the added funds to help develop and facilitate public services, including state schools. The change will be implemented from the beginning of 2025, and will mean that a 20% VAT will be added to fees. As a result, it is estimated that this will raise around £1.5 billion a year to invest into public services, including state education for the 9 out of ten children that attend state schools.
The introduction of the VAT has sparked a heated debate surrounding private schools, the morality of the commodification of education and the potential detrimental impacts that this policy could have. Indeed the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) predicts that around 20,000 to 40,000 students may leave private education as a result, with smaller independent schools already experiencing a 27% decline in enrolments.
Some argue that this policy will not alleviate disparities as intended, and instead create deeper divisions and social inequalities. Critically, it is more likely that the wealthy elite will be able to afford the 20% addition, while middle income families may be left struggling with the price hike.
It is also argued that private schools contribute to talented and highly successful individuals that benefit our society, allowing us to benefit from the trickle down of other’s talents, as a result of privately educated students. This argument proposes that limiting private education may deprive and ‘level down’ society, by eliminating the cultivation of talent and highly educated individuals. This perspective is rooted in the fact that private schools do not have to adhere to the national curriculum, and therefore have the flexibility to streamline and develop emerging talents by choosing focus points and creative education programmes.
However, there are also strong arguments highlighting the positives of this upcoming policy. Fundamentally, private schools contribute to social inequalities by creating a cycle of wealth that the elite benefit from. Rich people attend private schools, achieve wealth through their careers and connections and then send their own children to private schools to repeat the cycle. Therefore, adding VAT to private school fees may disincentivize parents from sending their children to private schools, disrupting the cycle.
The knock- on effect of this could also benefit society as a whole, with more students being educated in diverse communities and classrooms, therefore shaping more inclusive members of the future workforce. This policy would also encourage privileged parents to stimulate better school conditions within state schools by using their wealth and resources to ensure change. As a result this could help ‘level the playing field’ - which alongside the added £1.5 billion, could allow for better education conditions and more teachers for students.
At present, private schools create a ‘channelled experience’ where students are separated by differences and experience education surrounded by those very similar to them. Without experiencing a fully diverse society, students are less likely to foster mutual respect and shared understanding which can translate into a fragmented society and intolerance.
The debate over private education is long-standing, rooted in the fact that private school is not a necessity, but a luxury, and should therefore not receive tax breaks. Purchasing a better education makes private school a ‘positional good’, as not only is the education better, but it is a status symbol with special exclusivity, enhancing the appeal based on benefits beyond education, including connections, university admissions and careers.
But will the VAT imposition actually tackle inequalities - or will it exacerbate them? Although the VAT is symbolic of the correct sentiment, research suggests that it may have an adverse effect. Crucially, the imposition of VAT alone is not enough to tackle the deeper rooted social inequalities that plague our society that are entrenched by institutions such as private education.
The harsh reality is that this VAT imposition may not have a profound effect on the ultra-rich, who are likely able to accommodate the rise in fees. Instead it is more likely that the middle income households will be forced to pull their children from private education, limiting opportunities for the closure of wealth divides. As many private schools rely on their fee structures to fund scholarships and bursaries, the burden of the VAT imposition may threaten the future of these opportunities. This would disproportionately affect the middle-income families relying on financial aid, and result in a widening inequality gap.
Although the research on fundamental issues such as overcrowding and lacking capabilities is contrasting depending on varying findings and opinions, the true impact will only materialise when the VAT imposition comes into place. With some finding that the state school system has the capability to handle the shift in attending students, it may seem that the imposition is set up for success. However, the true success of this plan to alleviate social inequalities lies within the handling and redistribution of funding in an effective way that can provide genuine improvements to state schools.
Certainly, this policy provides a transformative opportunity for drastic change - but will this materialise or place more stress upon an already stretched, overcrowded school system?
Thanks for reading our article! We know young people’s opinions matter and really appreciate everyone who reads us.
Give us a follow on Instagram and TikTok to stay up to date with what young people think.