How Labour heralded the end of single-sex education
But a combination of Labour's imposition of VAT on school fees, its hike in National Insurance contributions and declining pupil numbers has left its plans in tatters. In the face of these 'unsustainable' conditions, the owners of the small school, in Sir Keir Starmer's Holborn and St Pancras constituency, in north London, announced it will close this summer.
It is one of a growing number of casualties linked to Labour's flagship policy to remove the VAT exemption, adding an extra 20 per cent on top of already hefty fees, pricing some families out of the market.
The policy has been described as 'devastating' by the Independent Schools Council (ISC). As its shock waves are felt across the sector, it appears that single-sex schools in particular, which can only market themselves to half of a shrinking pool of pupils, are under threat.
Among the dozen or so schools that have announced their closure since the start of the year, five are single sex. Even more apparent across private schools is an accelerated rush to co-educational provision. At least 16 single-sex schools are currently in the process of making the switch to a mixed intake.
These instances whittle away at the number of fully single-sex independent schools, which currently stands at 231 out of a total of 1,441 ISC members in the UK (just 16 per cent). In England, about 378 single-sex state schools remain. In Scotland, news that Stewart's Melville College for boys and The Mary Erskine School for girls, in Edinburgh, are merging leaves only three single-sex private schools north of the border.
The latest fee-paying school in England to make the move to co-ed is the £28,000 a year St Albans School for boys, in Hertfordshire, which was established in 948 and received its charter in 1553 from Edward VI. From September 2026, it will welcome both girls and boys into Year 7.
Other big-name schools that have announced they will fully open their doors to female pupils include £44,000 a year Westminster School, in central London, which has to date just had a co-ed sixth form, and Abingdon School, in Oxfordshire, which dates back to the 13th century.
These schools insist the move to co-ed is driven by their desire to be 'reflective of modern society'. The headmaster of Westminster, Dr Gary Savage, explicitly denies that the school is 'reforming to preserve' and says it is accepting girls because its ethos is to 'offer the best possible liberal education to any bright child who would flourish here'.
While the steady demise of boys-only schools does predate the VAT imposition, girls' schools that have, up until recently, been evangelical about their single-sex status are now going co-ed, including Malvern St James Girls', in Worcestershire, and Godolphin School, in Salisbury, where boarding fees are more than £45,000 a year.
According to Melanie Sanderson, managing editor of the Good Schools Guide, independent schools are doing all they can to 'secure their pipeline'.
'A school is a business now and they are increasingly focused on giving parents fewer reasons to rule them out,' she says. 'If you are a dual-income family, it can be more convenient to have both of your children in the same school. Did the parents with boys at St Albans ask for the school to go co-ed? I strongly doubt it. But in the landscape of a very competitive marketplace, schools are shoring up their future.'
For some, the move is more about the here and now. 'Schools are taking various measures in the fight for survival, including single-sex schools going co-ed to widen the potential pool of pupils,' says Irena Barker, digital editor at School Management Plus.
She points to an increasing number of schools joining or being bought out by a larger group, which then transition to co-ed. Beyond that, one in five schools is making redundancies to try and balance the books, according to one survey of teachers.
'There is a lot of pain behind the scenes,' says Barker. 'Individual heads are obviously not always trumpeting their difficulties, but they are real and pressing.'
Fears have been raised that this threat to single-sex provision could undermine advances in girls' education.
Alex Hutchinson, headteacher at James Allen's Girls' School in London, and president of the Girls' Schools Association, has warned the VAT imposition could have a 'seismic impact' on girls' life chances.
The evidence is clear that while boys do as well or better in co-ed settings as in single-sex ones, female pupils thrive in girls-only environments.
Girls who attend all-girls schools get better exam results than girls with similar records and backgrounds at mixed schools, and outdo boys at all-boys schools, an analysis by FFT Datalab reveals.
Single-sex settings also boost the number of girls taking 'masculine' subjects – like maths, physics and engineering at A-level and degree level. Research indicates that girls in all-girls schools are more likely to participate in sport, especially traditionally male-dominated endeavours like cricket and football, with all its attendant benefits.
Daniel Sayers, the head of St Hilda's, a girls' prep school in Harpenden, says single-sex education gives his pupils an inner confidence and self-belief.
'I've seen time and time again, pupils thriving in Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] subjects because the 'boy' 'girl' thing is just removed,' he says. 'And that works the other way as well. I've been around lots of boys' schools and seen boys keenly participating in drama and singing, for instance. There is no sense of 'This is not a cool thing to do'; they are just living the dream, and doing what they enjoy and are really good at.'
Parents who favour single-sex schools are voicing their unhappiness at the rush to co-ed. In a recent discussion on Mumsnet, one mother cited two local girls' schools with plans to take boys.
'I'm angry that the girls' welfare is being sacrificed for financial or strategic reasons, or because girls are supposed to have a 'moderating' effect on boys' behaviour,' she says.
Her point is echoed by Melanie Sanderson, from the Good Schools Guide: 'Lots of parents actively want a single-sex education for their daughters, and you can see why. We have the narrative of 'toxic masculinity' thrust down our throats every day of the week. If you haven't got a daughter that you are very confident can handle herself if she's made to feel uncomfortable by a boy, then maybe you would want to choose single-sex schools.'
There is also a question mark over whether traditional boys' schools that open their doors to girls can adapt quickly enough: 'These schools can take decades to truly feel like a co-ed and not just a boys' school that has let in some girls,' warns the head of one girls' school.
According to Sanderson, there remains a group of highly aspirational parents who want what a traditional boys-only education can offer.
'These big brands – such as Harrow, Eton and Radley – deliver academically, on the sports field and socially,' she says. 'And parents are assured that in this day and age, boys all know girls from other schools. Very few are living on an island where they don't know any girls. My son goes to a boys' school but has a mixed friendship group.'
While remaining resolutely single sex, some schools are forging closer ties to make them stronger. Sherborne Girls, Sherborne Boys, and two local preps, in Dorset, have formed Sherborne Schools Group, to allow for pupils and staff to work together, share facilities and resources and leverage economies of scale.
'We fundamentally believe in the advantages of single sex but think it needs an innovative approach to get the best of both worlds,' says Dr Ruth Sullivan, the head of Sherborne Girls. 'We are exploring opportunities for sharing resources, for example our teaching expertise. While some schools are having to cut back on niche subjects, we have a teacher coming in who is going to take Arabic studies, for instance, and that will be available across the schools.'
Sullivan is acutely aware, though, that not all schools have this kind of arrangement as an option.
'There are a lot of smaller schools, and many of them tend to be single-sex girls' schools, that are being impacted by VAT on fees,' she says. 'These schools don't have the economies of scale and don't have some of the big endowments that some of the boys' schools enjoy because they have not been around for as long. It's really tough for many schools in the sector.'
For these smaller single-sex schools, where every enrolment counts, the future has never been more uncertain.
'As well as the VAT, there's the drop in the birth rate, the high cost of living that families are experiencing, stagnating wages and the energy price cap is coming off,' said Sanderson. 'The overall picture is not favourable, particularly when schools are small and living hand to mouth off the fees. In some ways, it's a perfect storm.'
Single-sex closures
The Old Palace of John Whitgift School, girls school in Croydon, south London, closing in August 2025, 136 years after opening
The Village School for girls, in Hampstead, part of Chatsworth Schools, proposed closure end of summer term 2025
Highfield Prep for Girls, Maidenhead, part of Chatsworth Schools, proposed closure end of summer term 2025
St Hilda's Bushey, girls school in Hertfordshire, part of the Aldenham Foundation, consulting on closure in August 2025
Kilgraston School, girls senior school in Bridge of Earn, Scotland, closed August 2024
Moving to co-ed*
St Albans School, Hertfordshire
Aldwickbury Prep for boys, Hertfordshire, will welcome girls from sept 2025
King's House School for boys, is gradually moving to co-education with girls joining Reception and Year 1 in September 2024 and Years 3, 4, 5 and 7 in September 2025.
Moulsford Prep, boys school in Oxfordshire. From September 2026, it will take girls into Year 3. By September 2031, the School will have girls in every year group
Cothill, boys school in Oxfordshire; girls will be admitted in Years 3-5 in September 2025
Abingdon School and Prep School, Oxfordshire, announced its decision to move to co-education in May 2024
Abbot's Hill, girls school in Hemel Hempstead, will begin to take boys in the pre-prep and prep in September 2025
Aysgarth Prep, a boys school in North Yorkshire for nearly 150 years, welcomed girls in Years 4–8 from September 2024
Lochinver House, in Potters Bar, will be welcoming girls from September 2025 with the school becoming fully coeducational by 2031
Malvern St James Girls' School, in Worcestershire, will be accepting boys from September 2025
Cobham Hall, a girls school in Kent, will be fully co-educational from September 2025
Sir William Perkins's, a girls school in Chertsey, will open its doors to boys from September 2026, becoming fully co-educational by 2030.
Westminster School, in London. Its sixth-form is already co-ed: girls will join Year 9 for the first time in 2028 and the school will be fully co-ed by 2030
Kingsley School, in Leamington Spa, an all-through girls' school that takes boys to 11, announced that it will start becoming fully co-educational from 2025
Godolphin School, in Salisbury, will be taken over by United Learning group and go co-educational. Starting in September 2024, the prep school welcomed both boys and girls. Godolphin Senior will take boys from September 2025.
Bickley Park School for boys, in Bromley, will welcome girls from Year 1 in September 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
6 minutes ago
- Spectator
Can AI prevent prison violence?
The government desperately needs to save the justice system, and it believes that technology might be part of the solution. The Ministry of Justice has announced that it will be using AI to 'stop prison violence before it happens'. The need is urgent. There were over 30,000 assaults in prisons during the 12 months to the end of March 2025, a 9 per cent increase on the previous year. This is now Labour's problem. As Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns at the Howard League said yesterday, 'these statistics cover most of the government's first year in power. While action is being taken to reduce pressure on the prison population and stabilise regimes, far more must be done, and urgently, to save lives and ensure prisons work to cut crime, rather than create it.' So how will AI help? Describing a system more like that seen in Minority Report than our crumbling Victorian jails, the government says AI will 'identify dangerous prisoners and bring them under tight supervision'. AI will analyse data on individual prisoners, including their offending history and behaviour in custody in order to allow staff to prevent violence before it happens. Technology has already been deployed to rapidly scan prisoners' seized mobile phones to produce intelligence on crime within jails, including the drugs trade. This is very timely, as this week the government has announced that drone incidents over our prisons are up by 43 per cent. That's the idea anyway. The reality of course is that this will all rely on the data provided by prison staff, which is often of very low quality. This week I attended the ongoing inquest into the death of Rajwinder Singh, a man who died at Wandsworth in 2023. During testimony I heard on Wednesday, it became apparent that the contact logs were not reflective of the visits to Rajwinder's cell shown by the prison's CCTV. This is an extreme example, but anyone who has spent much time in prisons knows that they are often chaotic, badly-organised environments which rely on a huge amount of paperwork. If AI is fed garbage, it will be worse than useless. The government has great hopes for technology in prisons, something which I know is driven by Lord Timpson's personal enthusiasm for it. There are already some excellent examples of Large language models (LLMs) being deployed across the justice system. Probation have been piloting three different systems which take audio recordings of meetings between offenders and probation officers and produce transcripts, saving many hours of work. Even within the probation profession there are doubts about this. Tania Bassett, National Official of NAPO, the probation union, told me that there were concerns about whether LLMs could cope with some regional accents (with Geordie identified as being particularly challenging), and that they are 'approaching it with caution because of the MoJ's history of being bad with technology, and we are concerned that this doesn't become an excuse to replace people and relationships.' All this investment in technology will come at a high price, something NAPO are also concerned about, particularly as they are currently balloting for industrial action. Bassett said 'they're spending all this money on technology but we're in a strike ballot for pay – we're concerned that this £700 million for probation will end up being squandered on technology which doesn't solve the underlying problems' Broadly, this kind of investment in technology is a good thing. The justice system in general, and our prison system in particular, are incredibly backward, with a huge amount of staff time spent manually completing forms and documents. If technology can free staff up to spend time working with inmates, engaging in purposeful activity and making prison actually work, then it could be a huge benefit. There are likely to be challenges though. In particular, if there are perceived racial inequalities in who the systems identify as being likely to commit violence in jail, it is possible that legal challenges may be forthcoming. In the end, a safer prison system will benefit staff, inmates and the public. Jails which are awash with violence can do almost nothing to help people reform. Most prisoners do not want violence on their 'landings'. It might not quite be Minority Report, but if this halts the rising tide of violence in our prisons it will absolutely be worth it.
Spectator
6 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour accused of ‘social engineering' over working class internships
Well, well, well. It transpires that in plans to make Whitehall more working class, civil service internships will only be offered to, er, students from low income families. The Cabinet Office has said that only those from 'lower socio-economic backgrounds' will be able to apply to Whitehall's internship scheme – with eligibility based on, um, what jobs their parents did when they were 14. Good heavens… Currently the summer scheme is up to two months long, and open to undergraduate students in the last two years of their degree, allowing them to shadow civil servants, write briefings and take part in policy research. Those deemed successful will then be put forward for the Civil Service Fast Stream graduate programme. From next summer, however, only those from poorer backgrounds – with parents who are receptionists, plumbers or van drivers – will be accepted. Speaking to the Beeb, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden insisted: We need to get more working-class young people into the Civil Service so it harnesses the broadest range of talent and truly reflects the country. Government makes better decisions when it represents and understands the people we serve. The Tories have hit out at the move, criticising Sir Keir Starmer's Labour lot of 'leftist social engineering'. Shadow cabinet office minister Mike Wood added: 'We believe in opportunity based on what you can do, not where you come from. We all want to see greater opportunity for working-class young people. But this scheme sends the message that unless you fit a particular social profile, you're no longer welcome.' Quite. Perhaps the government should have taken a leaf out of The Spectator's CV-blind internship scheme instead…
Spectator
6 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump hasn't won the trade war
Maybe Trump doesn't always chicken out after all. Rapid trade deals with the UK, Japan, the EU and others in recent weeks may have given the impression that the trade war was essentially over. Today, though, comes Trump's Ardennes offensive, with immediate tariffs of 35 per cent announced for Canada. Other countries have been given a week to prepare for steep increases: India will be subject to 25 per cent tariffs, Taiwan 20 per cent and Switzerland – far from neutral in this particular conflict – 39 per cent. According to Trump, Canada has been singled out for harsh treatment because it has failed to cooperate on the flow of fentanyl across the border. Trump also hinted that he was punishing Canada for recognising Palestine, but then he has just done a trade deal with the EU in spite of France taking the same action, and didn't make any trade threats to Britain in spite of Keir Starmer saying this week that the UK will recognise Palestine in September if Israel does not meet certain conditions. It seems rather more likely that Trump is saying: look, other countries have yielded and agreed to one-sided trade deals with the US – I'm going to carry on beating you about the head until you agree to do the same. But will they? So far, the countries which have agreed to Trump's rather rough and ready trade deals have acted as if the benefits of a trading relationship with the US are one-way – they have more to lose than the US if a deal cannot be struck. But of course that is not always true. Taiwan, for example, produces over 90 per cent of the world's high-end microchips, which are implanted in just about every device manufactured in the US. What benefit does it bring America if those chips are in future taxed at 20 per cent? There is a strange dislocation in attitudes towards Trump's tariffs. Those who insist he has a very clever strategy and is winning tend also to be people who, in any other context, are in favour of low taxes. But a tariff is just a tax like any other – it adds costs to business and so suppresses economic activity. If tariffs are set at modest levels, it may be worth putting up with tariffs' depressing effect in return for the revenue they raise. Raise them above a certain level, however, and revenue will start to decline as business activity is discouraged – the classic Laffer effect. US growth may have proved more resilient than many feared it would be after Liberation Day, but it is certain that tariffs on raw materials and components are a negative influence on US manufacturing industry. A country does not 'win' by taxing its imports more than other countries tax its exports – if it did, the US would be one of the poorest countries in the world while many African countries would be startlingly rich. The US has done brilliantly well out of a regime of low import tariffs – as has Singapore, one of the few countries which, prior to Liberation Day, imposed even lower tariffs than did the US. But even if you do think that imposing higher tariffs than your trading partners amounts to 'victory', it is far from clear that Trump will emerge the eventual winner. Some countries may have yielded to him, but others are clearly holding out, and may well make the calculation that the US has more to lose from a trade war than they do. This war has a long way to run yet.
