To be annoyed that private schools have charity funding.

[Olympiathequeen]

They are not charities, they are businesses.

They do little or nothing for the local community.

They benefit by about £750 mil. They part fund bursaries for around half that amount.

Leaving them with a tidy little £300+ million profit at the expense of the taxpayers.

That money is desperately needed for public schools.

WTAF is the government doing?

[PeppaIsMyHero]

They remove 625,000 children from state education, which saves about £5,500 per pupil per year, which is something (though not £750m worth).

[schmack]

are there only 625000 children in private education in the UK?

They do have to have a declared community input for the charity status I think, token or not. One near us has a local state school use its swimming pool for PE. Not all are charities are they? Aren't there some privately owned ones run as businesses?

Dont really know, curious.

[BertrandRussell]

Yes. It's utterly outrageous.

Even if the private schools let the local state schools use their swimming pool every second Thursday between 3.45 and 4.20.

[PaulAnkaTheDog]

They don't just get given charitable status. Several of our local private schools were threatened with losing it a few years ago, they started doing things of benefit to the community. It's not as simple as you are making out.

[meditrina]

The value of charitable status is about £200 per pupil per term.

Set that £600 against the £5500 or so it would cost if state educated, that's not such a bad deal (even if you abate it to allow for overseas students leaving UK.

The provision of education is a charitable aim in law (and not just for schools) and I think there would be stiff opposition to having that removed or altered (for then every charity would have to reorganise their educational activities so they used non-charitable funds).

And of course at present there is no way to remove charitable status without closing the charity (under the laws and regulations which apply to every charity that is wound up). So it would be both expensive and chaotic for state schools and LEAs who would have to find places for those pupils somehow (especially Sixth Form, where as many as 20% are in independent school sixth forms, though of course some of those will be in schools which are businesses not charities).

[LottieDoubtie]

Most Independent schools do have charity status but certainly not all. They are not businesses as they do not make a profit- any 'surplus' from fee income is immediately put back into the school itself. They do of course benefit from tax relief- but it is wrong to say they are actually receiving funding from tax payers.

Public benefit is a very real thing- letting state schools share facilities like swimming pools in just one aspect of this- there will be others both publicised and hidden from public knowledge.

[Olympiathequeen]

It doesn't make them a charity though.

[Chapsview]

Actually that is about £3.4BN they save the Govt School Budget.

Also they do not have "Charity Funding" - nobody gives them charity money. They have Charity Status so they do not pay tax on income.

They bring in a lot of overseas money and also have to provide all sorts of local community support - such as use of facilities in order to retain charity status.

If you remove this fees will go up - less people will be able to afford it and the State School system will continue to implod as it is so overloaded.

[meditrina]

In law they are charities and some have been so for hundreds of years (which of course for a few means there are also the complications of specific Acts of Parliament and Royal Charters that would need unpicking as well.

It's only since about 2000 that they've been so very expensive relatively.

If you are against private education and want them closed, better to call openly for that. Rather than calling for the closure of just the ones that happen to be charities.

[Olympiathequeen]

It's also absurd to say 625000 pupils will need to accommodated in state schools as the vast majority of parents would still fund private education. The independent schools may have less money to plough back into their school system, but isn't that what state schools are being asked to do?

[Leanback]

Every private school near where I live is currently in the red rather than the black. Not all of them make a lot of money I can assure you.

[BertrandRussell]

I don'5 think anyone has said they want them closed-they've just said they don't want them to have charitable status

[meditrina]

"If you remove this fees will go up"

Well no, they'll have to close, under current law.

But, in a fictional world, the increase would be only about £200 or so per term, which would not cause crisis.

Of course Brexit could in theory make a bigger difference, as UK will then be able to set own version of VAT, and education fees might no longer be exempt (the EU version of the education exemption applies to all universities as well as school (though not crammers) - so be cReful what you wish for)

[Olympiathequeen]

I don't have anything against private schools. I just resent them benefiting at the expense of state schools with this bogus charity label.

And laws can be unpicked. It's done all the time.

Why do you think this 'free' costing £5,500 each places offer is being made? It's because they are aware of the unfairness and trying a little back peddling to keep their charity status.

And those place will not be going to the poorest families. Like all of them they will go to to the well off families who push and coach their children and apply for bursaries.

[wherearemymarbles]

6250000 x 5500 comes to about £3.4 billion per year so spend on the state system.

[meditrina]

"I don'5 think anyone has said they want them closed-they've just said they don't want them to have charitable status"

For those new to the debate, under current law removal of charitable status = closure.

There is no mechanism to convert charity funds and assets into private ownership. Ending a charity means it has to sell up all major assets at full market rate, and donate the proceeds to another (similarly-aimed) charity.

So if you call for removal, you are calling for closure, as the law stands.

[wherearemymarbles]

sorry 625,000
Saves the state a bloody fortune!

[HaveNoSocks]

I don't think it's actually as simple as you claim. As someone else has said they don't have charitable funding but charitable status which means they pay less tax on their "income". Essentially if you remove that charitable status you remove the incentive for them to participate in the local community and you ask fee paying parents to pay more tax on their children's education (having already been taxed on their salary). Since education is a charitable aim it's not generally expected that you pay tax on providing education.

[BertrandRussell]

"So if you call for removal, you are calling for closure, as the law stands."

4 very vital words in that sentence.

[Olympiathequeen]

Their charity status nets them £750 million. However it's dressed up that's unfair when state schools are looking at laying off staff,

[InCaseWeNeverMeetAgain]

I agree, it is outrageous when you think about it. But I can't see it changing

[meditrina]

"And laws can be unpicked. It's done all the time."

True, but I have never seen a proposal for a change of this sort nor even a decent description of what one would look like and let alone one which has the backing of all charities which provide education.

If anyone does know of a concrete proposal which has at least some stakeholder backing, could you link it?

[KERALA1]

Surely its a hangover from the past when they were paid for by benefactors for the benefit of other peoples children. An anomaly that needs to be dealt with, they are certainly not charities any more

[MrsMattBomer]

I disagree with private schooling anyway but I understand why it exists. I do agree that them getting charity status is absolutely disgusting.

[Olympiathequeen]

Saying they save the taxpayer money by educating the children who attend is as daft as saying an employer Emily's staff and is therefore saving the taxpayer from paying unemployment benefit.

The schools will still operate only they won't be subsidised by us taxpayers who are already paying for state schools.

Private education is a choice open to wealthier parents therefore they should pay for their choice. I don't see why I should pay for their choice. I want my taxes to pay for my children's education.