Category

Business

Category

Private schools in the UK, represented by the Independent Schools Council (ISC), have voted to take legal action against Labour’s decision to impose VAT on school fees.

The ISC, which represents 1,400 independent schools, argues that the new tax is discriminatory, particularly affecting students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), as well as faith-based and arts-specialist schools.

The ISC has engaged prominent barrister Lord Pannick KC, who defended Boris Johnson in the Partygate inquiry, to pursue a judicial review on the grounds that the VAT policy breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. The case will emphasise the policy’s impact on SEND students, arguing that families relying on private school provisions may struggle to find suitable alternatives in the state sector.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed the VAT measure would take effect in January, generating an estimated £1.7 billion annually by 2030. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts the policy could force 35,000 students out of private schools and into the state sector, which would create additional strain on public education resources.

Julie Robinson, ISC’s Chief Executive, expressed concerns that the policy disregards the diversity of the independent sector, where many schools operate with limited budgets. She emphasised that the ISC’s legal challenge would defend “the rights of families who have chosen independent education, but who may no longer be able to do so due to VAT on their fees.”

The ISC is calling on the government to reconsider the VAT policy’s timeline and collaborate on ways to mitigate its effects on smaller schools, SEND provisions, and arts education. With two-thirds of the tax expected to be passed on to parents, the impact of the measure could lead to significant shifts in the UK’s educational landscape, sparking ongoing debate over access to private education.

Read more:
Private schools to launch legal action against VAT on fees, calling policy ‘discriminatory’