Davida Ademuyiwa: Who owns Britain’s schools? Labour’s VAT rise risks selling them abroad

Davida Ademuyiwa is an International Trade & Investment Facilitator and Regional Ambassador for the Conservative Policy Forum (Eastern Region).

Britain risks sleepwalking into ideological takeovers of its schools through foreign ownership.

A recent report in The Times — ‘Surge in Chinese acquisitions of UK private schools’ — revealed that more than 30 schools have now been bought by Chinese investors. Officials have raised concerns that some of these acquisitions may involve links to the Chinese Communist Party.

Who owns our schools will decide who shapes Britain’s future.

On the surface, this might look like a simple matter of investment. But is it really just commercial? Or is something deeper at stake — something about culture, values, and Britain’s identity?

We like to assume that capital is neutral. Sometimes it is: investors provide funds, create value, take a return, and move on. But not all investment is of that kind. Some money comes with strings attached. It seeks not only profit but influence — shaping culture, values, and long‑term direction. When that capital is linked to political systems very different from our own, the consequences can stretch far beyond the balance sheet.

We already see how this influence works. Across the UK there are nearly thirty Confucius Institutes, most attached to universities. Funded by bodies linked to the Chinese state, they are promoted as cultural and language centres but have raised concerns about censorship, academic freedom, and subtle ideological pressure.

In the United States, alarm bells rang earlier. At their peak there were almost 120 Confucius Institutes. Today, barely a dozen remain. Washington acted decisively: federal funding was withdrawn, the Confucius Institute U.S. Center was designated a ‘foreign mission’, and Congress restricted partnerships through legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act. America concluded that these were not innocent cultural exchanges but potential risks to academic freedom and national security. Can Britain honestly say we are being equally vigilant?

Closer to home, even some of our most prestigious schools have considered partnerships in China. Westminster School once planned to open six branches in China, teaching elements of the Chinese national curriculum. Though the project was abandoned, the very idea illustrates how far commercial opportunities can test cultural integrity.

The Saïd Business School at Oxford carries the name of a foreign donor — proof of how capital reshapes even the identity of our most elite institutions.

Ownership matters because it shapes choices. We accept this instinctively in other sectors. When Middle Eastern investors sought to buy The Telegraph and The Spectator, there was uproar. The Government blocked the deal on national security grounds. If we worry about newspapers because they shape public opinion, should we not worry more about schools — which shape the values and outlook of the next generation?

Now more than thirty of those schools are in Chinese ownership. Are these ordinary business transactions, or politically infused acquisitions aligned with a longer‑term strategy to extend influence abroad?

Schools are not like any other business. They are institutions of culture and identity. They shape character. They teach history. They project Britishness to the wider world. If ownership changes hands, what else might change over time — the ethos, the curriculum, the values instilled in future citizens?

A school that looks British on the outside can still be shaped by foreign influence on the inside.

All this is happening at a time of cultural pressure at home. The British Council, once one of our great instruments of soft power, has been retreating. Offices have closed in Latin America and the Caribbean. Others have been scaled back across Europe, Africa and Asia. Where Britain steps back, others step forward. Whilst we close cultural centres, China is opening Confucius Institutes by the dozen.

Meanwhile, within our own universities, the advance of wokeness — silencing debate, rewriting history, eroding confidence in British traditions — shows how fragile institutional culture can be. If this drift can happen under British ownership, how much more vulnerable are schools when their levers of control sit abroad?

Fresh developments underline this point. The Guardian recently reported that twenty of the Confucius Institutes at UK universities are now under threat from new free speech rules introduced by the Office for Students.

Regulators fear that ideological vetting of staff — linked to the Chinese Communist Party — may breach academic freedom. University leaders, meanwhile, say the guidance is unclear and are seeking urgent clarification.

The battle over foreign influence is therefore not just about schools, but about the integrity of higher education too.

Into this mix comes Labour’s VAT raid on school fees. It will place further strain on independent schools, driving some into financial difficulty. And when those schools stumble, who will step in to buy them? Will it be British investors, alumni networks, or pension funds? Or will it be those with deeper pockets abroad, for whom education is not just a business opportunity, but a strategic prize?

Britain risks hollowing out its own institutions. We could end up with schools that look British on the outside, but where the ethos and influence are quietly drifting elsewhere.

This is why Conservatives must not only be the party of border control, but also the party of cultural confidence. Stopping the boats is essential — but it is not enough. We must also stop the slow seep of influence that comes when our institutions are left exposed.

Britain should remain open to trade and investment. But when it comes to our schools, the source of capital matters. These are institutions of national identity, not just private assets.

There is, of course, a balance to strike. Independent schools are private institutions and should remain free to innovate and run their own affairs. But freedom is not the same as vulnerability. When ownership risks undermining our national interest, government has a duty to act — not to control every decision, but to safeguard the values these institutions represent.

That is why the Government should extend the National Security and Investment Act to cover the education sector. Alumni networks and pension funds should be encouraged to invest in British schools, so they remain in British hands. And we must insist that curriculum and ethos reflect our values, not those of foreign powers.

Schools need guardians, not just owners — and Conservatives must lead the way in making sure they have them.

The post Davida Ademuyiwa: Who owns Britain’s schools? Labour’s VAT rise risks selling them abroad appeared first on Conservative Home.