There was little at the Labour conference this week to dispel school leaders’ fears that the party is committed to adding VAT to school fees in the event of an election win.
It is a topic that has dominated discourse among leaders in our sector over the last 18 months, but how can we best demonstrate the adverse impact that it will have? What should schools do to prepare for the potential imposition of VAT on fees, and what will the consequences ultimately be?
One topic that has featured less, and understandably so, is how our sector might better come to the table and work with a potential Labour government. Could we, perhaps, help them achieve their aims without pursuing a policy that will be far more damaging than they anticipate?
School leaders and member organisations are rightly nervous about the prospect of giving more ideas to the party lest they be imposed alongside VAT, rather than instead of it. I can also appreciate that entertaining the conversation by discussing alternatives is ceding ground in a debate where the terms and narrative have not been in our hands.
“Could we help them achieve their aims without pursuing a damaging policy?”
By raising the issue of alternatives we are in danger of reinforcing the unfair picture that Labour has painted of our schools, teachers and pupils.
And yet…
In recent months, the commitment to introducing VAT on fees is one of the few clear policies that the Labour Party has offered, and the likelihood of them rowing back from it seems remote. The ISC has worked hard to put our case across and reflect fairly our fears on behalf of schools and parents, and still the needle has yet to move.
Without being defeatist in approach, I wonder if it is time instead for the sector to look at ways we can help Labour to meet their aims, without the imposition of VAT being necessary?
They are clear in what they hope to achieve by making such a move – improvements in the state system. And if we can show how we can be part of the solution before an election takes place, there is far more chance of policies being watered down or reframed without it being seen as a complete retreat.
There will be intelligent people who will come up with better ideas than I can, but there are a few areas that seem in easy reach that could be explored more meaningfully.
“We could even explore what a percentage levy on revenue might raise.”
For example, hubs of independent schools working to fund teacher training in regions, or even provide funding for shortage subject teaching in local schools. The sharing of resources at a local level, or even exploring what a small percentage levy on EBITDA might raise are all ways that schools like ours can still provide resources, but in a fair and manageable manner.
The biggest problems with VAT being imposed on fees come through the disproportionate ways it will affect schools in the sector, as well as the unknowable nature of its impact. After all, how many schools can accurately identify what the impact on parents will be, or what it might mean for pupil numbers in years to come?
Looking at the ways in which we can help raise standards in education, with a measure of understanding and control over their impact, seems a fair way to approach the issue.
Many of these ideas will still have an impact on our schools and how we best serve our communities. At the same time, it is perhaps time to come to the table and discuss with Labour how our voice can be heard in meeting the goals they have set.
It is surely better than highlighting our worries and seeing damaging and unfair policies imposed anyway.