Tim Clark: Badenoch v Phillipson

Tim Clark

The war of words between Ms Badenoch and Ms Phillipson at Wednesday’s PMQs, which then spilled over into the division lobby, has received a great deal of media coverage. Badenoch accused Phillipson of being spiteful and incompetent, although the latter appears to have warmed to the epithet of “spiteful class warrior”, telling The Mirror, “I will wear that as a badge of honour”.

Katherine Birbalsingh, when interviewed by the Daily Telegraph argued that she felt sure that Phillipson meant well, but having absolutely no experience of working in schools, her policies were harming young people’s futures.

This seems to be endorsed by the teaching profession: a poll conducted by the NEU earlier this month found that 72% of teachers and support staff believe that Labour has performed badly on education (voting either “fairly badly” 37% or “very badly” 35%) and 74% believe that Bridget Phillipson is doing a bad job as education secretary – 34% “quite badly” and 40% “very badly”. (In a YouGov poll of Labour members conducted last month, whereas 45% of respondents backed Andy Burnham as the next leader, 24% continued to back Keir Starmer and 4% supported Wes
Streeting, almost no one chose Bridget Phillipson.)

The tone of the spat aside (which drew criticism from the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle) what criticisms can be justly made of Phillipson? Let’s take four specific examples:

20% VAT on independent school fees.

As someone who spent my whole career in the state sector, it is not my mission to defend private education. As argued when the policy was first announced, however, whatever the reasoning behind the policy, the unintended consequences would lead to greater inequality in our education system, not less. The people who are worst affected by the policy, are those who scrimp and save to enable their children to attend good, often local, independent schools, who now have simply been priced out of the market. It is the parents who find it hard to pay £15 or £20,000 that will not be able to afford an additional 20%; the parents, however, who could afford Eton’s £17,583 per term last year, can probably afford £21,099.60 per term this year. The result of Phillipson’s policy? Private education is becoming the preserve of the very rich and not of those on middle incomes who were prepared to put their children’s education before everything else.

Time will tell how many minor independent schools will close [I should bet money that none of the “famous names” will be closing its doors] and how many additional children will have to be accommodated in the already overstretched state system. At the moment, the figure seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40,000. What is more, the promise of using the money raised by the 20% levy to support state schools is rather hollow: as the number of pupils in independent schools falls, the amount raised from the VAT will in consequence, obviously, decline.

A far fairer policy would be to make the state school system so impressive that parents did not feel the need to seek education elsewhere.

6,500 new teachers.

Teacher recruitment and retention remains, despite falling school rolls, the single biggest barrier to school improvement, as it has been over the last ten to twenty years. The Labour manifesto promise of creating 6,500 new teachers has not been achieved and was, even if it had been fulfilled, a drop in the ocean considering the 40,000 teachers who quit the profession last year before retirement age. A recent survey by teachertap.com (April 2026) found that “Despite low recruitment activity in the primary sector, primary teachers’ perceptions of staffing quality have continued to worsen, with 21% now reporting that their school is inadequately staffed with suitably qualified teachers”. Furthermore, “The pipeline of future headteachers continues to narrow.”

“She is overseeing the largest reduction in teachers, in terms of pupil demographics, in over half a century…. Declining pupil rolls are being used not to reduce class sizes but to cut staff and balance budgets.” (NEU 21/06/2026) This is confirmed by a research briefing for the House of Commons, published on 2nd February, 2026 – teacher/pupil ratios are worse now than in 2010. The DfE’s annual workforce survey (updated 5th June 2026) shows there are 1,900 fewer full-time teachers than in 2024 and 800 fewer entrants. Only one third of new teachers stay in the profession for more than five years (32.6%) The Institute of Physics has shown that a quarter of schools do not have a single fully qualified physics teacher. There has, however, been a significant increase in the number of teaching assistants – 6,200. The quantity and quality of available teachers is a significant concern.

School uniforms.

Uniforms can be expensive for parents so, to make the costs more manageable, Phillipson has decreed that schools can now only insist on a maximum of three branded items, thus permitting parents to buy the rest of the uniform from cheaper, non-specialist shops. Again, the theory makes sense, but the reality? I have always firmly supported a smart uniform for three reasons: it gives pupils an identity; it helps to create a disciplined and purposeful environment and, most importantly, it is a great leveller – every pupil looks the same, regardless of background, family income or ability. An exam board inspector, on a visit to my academy in Hackney, sited on one of the largest and most deprived council estates in the country, asked me if we were a grammar school. Why? Because the pupils were so smartly dressed, polite and well behaved. The uniform played a significant part in our success. Instead of limiting the uniform, why not provide more grants to those parents who cannot afford it? Why not simply encourage schools to find ways of making the uniform cheaper (do black trousers or white shirts have to be bought from the school supplier)? Yet again, what is the unintended consequence of Phillipson’s policy? Those with the money to attend the most expensive independent schools will look smarter than their state school counterparts. Is that equality?

Breakfast clubs.

There can be no doubt that children who turn up to school hungry will find it hard to concentrate, behave and engage, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that breakfast clubs can support educational progress. Currently, about 1,250 primary schools are running the free scheme, with the intention that the programme will be rolled out to all primary schools. Yet again, the intention is good, especially at a time of a cost-of-living crisis and economic stagnation, but what of the reality? The clubs are being funded by central government, but is the funding enough without schools having to delve into their overstretched budgets? £25 per day is offered to each school to cover fixed costs such as staffing (no matter how many pupils attend), but with the National Living Wage at £12.71, will £25 cover the cost of both preparation staffing and supervision staffing?

Although few can argue against the principle of free breakfast clubs, the fundamental question remains: school budgets are tight and finite, is this the best use of the money? The next teacher pay award is not fully funded, so schools will have to make further cuts to fund the (fully deserved) pay rises. Phillipson’s changes to SEND and careers-related education are not being fully funded or resourced, adding yet further pressure on school finances. When budgets are so tight, is it a good use of money to provide a free breakfast for children who may get a better one at home, especially if the policy adds to the pressure to reduce staffing, cut extra-curricular activities and to reduce provision in other areas? (Though I do not deny the social benefits of children eating together, as they do at lunchtime.)

I have never met Bridget Phillipson and so do not know if she is vindictive or spiteful. I do not know whether she is competent or incompetent. What is clear, however, is that she has absolutely no understanding of schools or what is needed to provide this country with a world-class education system and one that enables every child, regardless of background or ability, to thrive at school and in life. The fact she is failing to do this, is something about which we should all be concerned.