Into the Lions’ Den of private education … to a friendlier reception than I expected

I very rarely get nervous before speaking in public, but confess to feeling a little more anxious than usual this morning, ahead of a speech to the Independent Schools' Bursars Association. Three hundred bursars and finance directors, whose lives and livelihoods, and the education of many thousands of children, might be affected by Labour plans to change their tax regime, plans which I intended to defend whole-heartedly, alongside saying I felt attitudes to private education were a big part of what was wrong with our country. I am not a fan!

It was less that I feared booing, hissing or heckling, more that my ego is large enough for me to dread delivering a speech that is greeted with indifference or sullen hostility. So, again rarely for me, as someone who prefers to turn up, read the audience and riff, I prepared a "proper speech," and save for the occasional wandering ad lib, and a few cuts for time, delivered it word for word as written in recent days. I have posted it below.

As things turned out, I was greeted warmly, heard respectfully, and applauded sufficiently at the end to assure me I would at least get out alive. Indeed, there were a fair few nods and smiles to my central points and I saw only one face that my mother would have described as "looking like thunder." The owner of the said face also had the only hand that was raised when, in the Q and A, I asked for a show of hands on whether Brexit was going well. I can spot a non-fan when I see one.

ISBA's Chief Executive David Woodgate could not have been kinder in his remarks following my speech, but there was one point he made which I think Labour need to take on board. He was responding to a section in the speech where I said the private schools should engage more with their communities and the state schools within them, and engage with Labour more about the role they could play in driving up for standards for all. Mr Woodgate said they had made persistent efforts to engage with Labour, but without success. He told me privately afterwards that he felt there was a hostility there didn't need to be.

The tax changes are obviously unpopular with most of the schools whose bursars I was speaking to. But there was a willingness to accept some of the broader arguments involved in the debate, and I left thinking that it would be good politics for Labour for their debates about and with the private schools not just to be about the tax changes.

With the Party this morning signalling the latest twist in the "will they won't they?" tug of war on the size of their commitment to their green prosperity plan, which is discussed on the latest Rest Is Politics today, the VAT on private school fees moves into pole position in the field of clear policies that have some level of understanding by the public. I think if Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson were to take her arguments about the need for a different approach to education to the people I spoke to today, she might be surprised at the engagement she could get.

Here is the speech ...

If you listen to my podcast, and if you have followed my career before or since I worked in government, during which time I was willingly tied to the views and policies of my boss, you may know – let’s start by getting the elephant out of the room – that I am, to put it mildly, not a big supporter of private schools.

My driving belief is in equality of opportunity, and I think that can best be aimed for by an education system in which we all feel, parents, teachers and children alike, a sense of joint ownership and joint endeavour. And, if we were charged with devising a brand new education system, I’m not sure that even the new right-wing faction of today’s Tory Party, the ill-named Popular Conservatives, would have as its defining principle the idea that the best off children should get the most luxurious education.

You will be pleased to recall that my old boss didn’t share my absolutist view and, to put your minds at rest, nor does his successor as Labour leader, albeit that Keir Starmer is proposing something that we didn’t, and which I suspect most of you will oppose, namely the change in the tax regime for private schools. 

I see this as a specific change to make the education system fairer and raise money to spend on other elements of education. I don’t think you should imagine it represents a step on the road to your demise. Leave that nonsense to the Mail and the Telegraph and the like.

I believe in State comprehensive education. I just wish we had actually tried it, as a country. The dictionary definition of comprehensive is “including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something …” well, if the something in this debate is education, and the elements or aspects are children, you might at a push make a case that “nearly all” children are involved in comprehensive education, in that the majority pass through what are described as comprehensive schools, but certainly not all.

Now I know you can read too much into international league tables, but I do think it is interesting, and not entirely coincidental, that in countries which have consistently been near the top of them, such as Finland and Canada, there is barely a private sector worth the name.

Here, seven per cent of our children attend private fee-paying schools. That is the choice, and the right, of their parents to send them there, and to pay for the privilege of what they presumably see as a better education than their children will get in the state sector, funded by what they already pay in taxation. But it is surely at least reasonable to ask why all other taxpayers should subsidise those choices? 

Politics, and especially government, are also about choices. Often very difficult choices. And there is no doubt in my mind that if Labour replace this government, during whose terms I can think of literally nothing that has improved, and much that has got worse, they will be inheriting an economic, social, cultural and security situation far worse than we did back in 1997. So the choices will be pretty tough, from the off.

If they are to deliver on their promise of a growing economy, then education has to be a priority. If their objective is growth, growth, growth, then education, education, education has to be at the heart of it. We may be entering the era of artificial intelligence, which can be transformative for our lives, for good, for bad, for both. But there will always be the need for human beings to be educated to make the most of their talent in order for this country to make the most of opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

And if I can borrow again from the New Labour lexicon, the right thing to do is to focus on education for the many, not the few. The change Labour is proposing will of course have an impact upon the schools you represent, and not all of it welcome to you and your parents, I am sure. The impact may not be as dramatic as the more lurid and parti pris analyses might suggest, and in any event it is a choice being made so that in a tough economic environment, more funding can be found for the schools used by the 93percent. That is not unreasonable given the pattern of recent years. 

Let’s not forget this is coming at the end of a period defined by a particularly damaging ABC - Austerity which failed to secure economic recovery and further increased the funding gap between private and public schools; Brexit which has made us poorer and weaker and contributed to the crisis in public services recruitment and attention, which I know has hit your sector too; COVID which was a hammer blow to many schools and many children, the disadvantaged most of all; and if I may be allowed a second C - the Calamity of the Kamikwazi Truss ideological experiment. 

To read much of the press, Labour’s plan represents an act of class war. To read the opinion polls, it commands support in every age group and social class. Of course there is a reason why the press debate on this is out of kilter with what I define as real public opinion. That is that almost all editors in the national press are among the seven percent, when it comes to the choice of school for their children. Many of the major national opinion formers live in London and the South East, which has the highest proportion of private school users in the country, as I know from the morning traffic jams in and around where I live as the children are driven in from around town, past all manner of good schools with falling rolls and so plenty of room for others.

So we have a skewed media debate in this country because of the choices made for themselves by media owners and editors, and I would like to get this debate where it should be … a debate about how we get more investment and standards in the schools used by the many, not a debate about tax breaks and privilege for the schools used by the few.

If we genuinely believe in equality of opportunity, if we genuinely believe that every child has the right to have their potential maximised, if we genuinely believe, as the Prime Minister says he does, that every child is entitled to a top-class education, then the focus surely has to be, so far as government is concerned, on the 93percent. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has assessed that the changes being proposed by Labour would raise around one and a half billion pounds. Not enough to be transformative, far from it. But a start. 

Even with all the extra investment we put into education under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the gap between average spending on a state school child and a private school child was 40percent, in cash terms £3,500, when we left office. Today, after fourteen conservative years and five Prime Ministers, it has more than doubled. So in 2022/23, average private school fees were £15,200, net of bursaries and scholarships. For a state school child, between 6 and 8 thousand, including day-to-day and capital spending. Levelling up? Great slogan. But that is all it has been.

There are regional variations in both sectors. In the state sector, total day-to-day funding is £7,600 per pupil per year in London, £6,200 per pupil in the East of England, a range of about 22%. According to the Independent Schools Council, average day school fees vary from about £12,000 per year in the North West of England to about £20,000 in London, a bigger regional range of 66%.

As I said earlier, we are all entitled to make whatever choice we wish, within the law. But when Rishi Sunak makes the personal choice to spend £48,000 per pupil – more than six times the cost per pupil of good and outstanding state schools in the same area – that is his choice, as a parent who can afford to make it. But surely he can grasp the principle as Prime Minister that if I spend six times as much on anything I am doing so to buy what I consider to be six times a better product, and that therefore his duty as a politician is genuinely to seek to level up. So how come it is at those who actually do want to level up, that he directs his claims that Labour’s change is driven by class war, class envy, or a hit on aspiration. And think about the real classist attitude underlying those views, that somehow you lack aspiration for your children if you DON’T want to pay to buy the smaller classes sizes, the more affluent companions for your children, the better sports, musical and cultural facilities, the networks that help smooth the routes to better universities, better jobs, better opportunities. Let’s stop pretending … because when I hear the Tories going wild about this policy, I hear those who already have power, wealth and opportunity desperate to ensure they defend what they have, and get more of it.

I am sure that many of you resent as much as I do the dominant role that a small number of the so-called top schools play in this debate. The Eton of Johnson and Cameron. The Winchester of Sunak. The Charterhouse of Hunt. I don’t blame them as individuals for going to the schools to which their parents sent them, any more than I blame Tony Blair that his parents sent him to Fettes. I do blame those more recent politicians though, for failing to narrow the gap they know exists between the schools they know from their own experience, and those used by the overwhelming majority of the people they are there to work for.

And whilst I accept you are not all Eton, there is a good reason Eton in particular is so important to this debate. Precisely because of the special place it has in our history and national life. Three times as many Prime Ministers have come from that one school than have come from the Labour Party, all of them Conservatives, two of them in recent years, one of them to my mind the worst Prime Minister in our history, and who I do not believe would have reached the top of any pile, let alone politics, had it not been for his background and the privilege that came with it.

One school? Producing three times as many PMs as what it meant to be one of the two great parties of government in what is meant to be a modern democracy. Coincidence? Or a sign that the education system in this country is a fundamental part of the political and broader culture which prevents us from truly being the meritocracy we claim to be.

So yes, you are not all Eton. Eton and the other big name schools will doubtless survive this change being proposed by Labour. Also, if Labour win, but the Tories get back some time in the future, I don’t doubt Eton will continue to provide politicians. Indeed, given their multi-million pound purpose-built debating chamber, the wonder is they haven’t produced more!

As for the impact on schools lower down the private sector fees ladder, in what I consider to be the most thorough analysis of Labour’s policy, the IFS estimates that somewhere between twenty and forty thousand will no longer use private schools. That doesn’t mean that number will “take their children out of schools,” because their estimate includes people who will choose not to enter the private sector in the first place if the planned VAT change is implemented. 

For those who have entered but then decide to leave, I am not sure I buy the argument that they will be putting enormous added strain on the state sector. There are eight million state school places. Rolls are falling. So, again to quote the IFS analysis, the state sector could easily accommodate that higher end number given overall pupil numbers across England are predicted to decline by an average of at least 100,000 per year up to 2030 – that represents a total drop of over 700,000, which is more than the total number of children who go to private schools. I have heard it said some private schools worry they will have to close because of the Labour change. Well, some state schools are having to close now. Indeed within walking distance of where I live, we have lost three local primary schools recently because of lack of demand, partly caused by the lower birth rate, partly the growth of the private sector, partly in the case of two Catholic schools exacerbated by Brexit, and the departure of many Polish families.

The birth-rate issue is one we hear little about in the national debate, but it is significant. The national data based on local authorities’ submissions around the country predicts a 1percent decrease each year from now on to primary school rolls.  London boroughs are predicted to see a 7.3 percent  decrease in reception pupil numbers from 2022-23 to 2026-27. Between 2012-2021 there has been a 17 percent decrease in the birth rate in London. It is a big issue.

I am sure there will be some parents, for whom the change means they cannot afford the private education they are already buying. But I do not believe they will be large in number, or that they will not be able to access good schools in the state sector, provided Labour picks up where the last Labour government left off, in terms of its commitment to ensuring education benefits both from its place in the national mission, and its share of resources if and when the economy returns to vitality. Fees have increased year on year for two decades or so – a 20percent real terms rise since 2010, 55percent since 2003. It is also worth being clear, as I believe Labour have been, that places in private schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities who have a valid Education Health and Care Plan would not attract VAT. They have also been clear that their proposals do not mean exit from teachers’ pension schemes. These are parts of the plan I never see reported in those parts of the media which claim this is all about class war.

This is an emotive issue and when emotions and passions are involved, getting to the factual heart of a matter is not always straightforward. One analysis exists that a quarter of private school children – as many as 135,000 pupils – will switch sectors. This is said to be based on a paper commissioned by the Independent Schools Council. Their consultants examined parents’ detailed finances in 21 schools. The statistical methods used are not fully explained. And is such a small sample really a way to develop an accurate view across the whole country? 

Another attributed source for this claim is a survey of 16,000 parents by the ISC itself. The Private Education Policy Forum, which is closer to my side of the argument, has asked the ISC for the survey methodology and full data set, but has so far not seen it. I do feel inclined to take more seriously the IFS assessment of much smaller numbers making the switch.

And to those parents who for whatever reason fear the State sector, I have two cursory tales, both from Camden, where our three children were educated. First, even with the ABC I mentioned, seven more of the borough’s primary schools received an outstanding grading by Ofsted last year. 

Second, when my own children were young, their primary school had a very bad Ofsted, as a result of which, quite a few parents went private. Those of us who stayed mounted a campaign for a change of leadership, and after a lot of wrangling, the head moved on with a reasonable pay off … which helped him buy a private school. Meanwhile the parents who remained, not least my partner Fiona, who became chair of governors, got properly stuck in in supporting the school, which steadily became outstanding.

Now there are always problems when allocating pupil places in the state sector. And though I do think the effect of the proposed VAT on this allocation will be small overall, I accept there may well be some communities where a private school closes, and so local authorities and other private schools in the area need to react quickly. 

Then there is the claim that ‘disadvantaged’ students will no longer be able to get into some schools because places will be taken by students coming from the private sector. But it is just as likely the ex-private school students won’t all get into their favoured schools. As a result we will have more socially mixed state schools, which I would see as a positive thing for our society. 

Doubtless many of you will argue that you will have to reduce bursaries for poorer children or remove them altogether, meaning children from deprived backgrounds who currently get access to private education won’t do so.  But again, let’s be honest here. We are talking relatively small numbers. Just one per cent on full bursaries. The top London fee-paying schools advertising bursaries for families earning up to £125,000 a year. How many children eligible for free school meals or the pupil premium are qualifying? An exception not the rule, no? I would be interested to know how many schools give full bursaries to the poorest children, and how many bursaries are in effect fee reductions for middle class families. I believe we were right to scrap the assisted places scheme in 1997 in order to raise funds to deliver smaller class sizes, and I see this change as part of that tradition. 

And given I do not believe Labour are going to mount a great crusade against you all, if I were you I would engage more in seeking to help them deliver in their mission to raise educational standards for all. Be agents of change. Expansion of true bursaries; access to school grounds, sport and musical facilities if you have the capacity; those who run debating clubs inviting in the kids from the schools who don’t, and helping them develop confidence. Good for the State school children; good for yours. So much creativity and innovation comes from diversity. Navigating difference is crucial to thriving in the modern world. 

The top private schools have certainly produced a lot of PMs, a lot of editors, a lot of people in the top jobs of most sectors. But the best? I’m not convinced. Is one of Mr Sunak’s problems not just that he seems cut off from much of the realities of modern Britain, but that he is?

One thing I hope we can all welcome is that at least this issue is getting education back in the political debate. When we said in 1997 that education would be the Number 1 priority, we meant it. David Blunkett for me was a defining education secretary. So, in very different ways, was Michael Gove, who incidentally has also questioned the charitable status of private schools, a nettle Labour has decided not to grasp because of the complexities. But since his departure, education has fallen down the agenda, which is a matter for regret, and we need to get it far higher again, hopefully more with a Blunkett-Phillipson approach than Gove-Keegan.

Part of what Oppositions have to do is send signals about the kind of change they want to make. Of course you need specific policy, and this is one of them. I hope there will be more as we near the election, not just in education but across the piece. It is important to win not merely because people are fed up with the other side, but because they see an alternative and want to back it. Back in 1997, we were pleased when our plans for the minimum wage or the New Deal, or the scrapping of assisted places, came under attack. They were symbolic policies designed to signal change, and in truth we did a lot more than all of the above. 

I hope the VAT change is a signal of Labour’s determination to raise standards for the many. Training and paying more teachers, putting mental health support into schools, investing in early speech and language interventions, these are signals, they represent direction of travel. I would argue that we ended up doing far more than we promised. I hope that if Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister, and Bridget Phillipson becomes education secretary, they will do more than promised too. 

I fully understand why some of you, looking at this purely through the lens of the private school bursar, will have concerns. However, at a time when the gap between the best and worst in education is widening again, and so many schools I visit really are struggling under the weight of the ABC and other pressures, is it really fair that the gap between what is spent on State school children and what is spent on private school pupils should be widening in the way it has been?

We are setting ourselves up for worse and bigger challenges in the future if we don’t invest adequately in our children. Your parents feel that their often already advantaged children deserve so much more. Why shouldn’t every parent be able to have that aspiration?

Thank you.