to want to abolish private schools' charitable status?

[minifingers]

Which costs the tax payer 100 million squids a year.

Schools justify having charitable status by saying they offer financial help to 'disadvantaged' children.

The 'disadvantaged' children they refer to are actually, almost to a boy/girl, highly intelligent, academically successful children who have outstandingly supportive parents (otherwise they wouldn't be researching bursaries/applying for schools/preparing their children for exams). In other words, not at all disadvantaged. These are the children who generally succeed very highly in the state sector too.

I personally think that tax-payers money should go towards supporting those children who are failing in education, not to those children who are already succeeding. Surely it's more beneficial for the children who are currently failing most severely in the state sector to have tax payers money spent on them, as these are the children who the tax payer ends up supporting through benefits/the prison system.

In addition, 'skimming off' this top layer of very clever children and sending them to be educated separately from other ordinary kids impacts on the learning of all the other children in the state sector - any of us who have done a degree/been in education know what a difference it makes to be in a class where there are a lot of clever/motivated people, how much more enjoyable and productive learning is.

Just to draw a mumsnet analogy - imagine if all the funniest and most interesting posters here were offered their own site - 'mumsnet gold', where they could be funny and interesting all day long and those of us who are not as funny and clever would be excluded. Imagine how much of a loss that would be to everyone here? we could rename the new non-gold site 'netmums2'

So, AIBU?

Take the £100000000 currently given to private schools and give it to state schools with the largest number of underachieving students to spend on supporting their education instead?

Seriously, there is a lot you can say about private education, and some of it is harder to argue against than other (like, what to do if your local school only offers dual award science and the private school all three; Latin in private and not at state; children bullied in one school and not in another, maybe), but to suggest that private schools make a contribution to the community they are in is not one which really washes.

Two of our private schools offer GCSE Latin to the three highest scoring children in each state school, in a test they set: I would imagine this is very helpful in ticking their charity box. I also see that it's a good thing for the children who do it - and since they're carefully selected, a class of a*s for the private teacher in his state school work looks very nice indeed.

What I do not see is how that is of any benefit to the community. Or to the children who don't do it, indeed.

TOSN: I don't see any benefit in the local community from private schools either. I am aware of the bursaries that are offered and I am aware that some schools offer higher levels of financial assistance than others. But I suppose I don't notice lots of things until it no longer exists. Would I see a difference if the private schools stopped offering anything to the community? Would I see any schools not being able to swim due to a lack of a pool etc? I don't really know because often I don't miss things until they are gone.

Ds's independent school is part of a small chain which sponsors a number of academies across the country (an equal number to the number of fee-paying schools).

They give means tested bursaries to a number of children, focussing on a particular group of mild SEN children as they have some specialist teachers.

They share their music facilities with the wider community. They run an orchestra and a choir -both totally free of charge - to children from any other local schools on the weekend.

They open their -very cheap and very high quality - holiday club to any other children in the area.

They don't share sporting facilities as these are worse (being on a smaller campus) than all the lical state schools. They pay instead for use of a state school's fields.

They also paid the majority of the cost towards upgrading a local community sports club's hockey pitches for use by the whole community (as the school also has use of them).

I just assumed all private schools fulfilled their charity obligations in a similar manner.

Missunreasonable yes, I see your point - that some things are less visible than others.

Perhaps I'm coming at this from a different angle: is it really the best way to organize things, to say that okay, private schools can have the tax breaks and earn them by (in some cases) doing things like helping pay for community sports clubs (though would be interested to know who else chipped in, and whether they were in receipt of the tax breaks associated with charitable status). Because to my mind private schools do so much damage just by being there, that a few quid on a sports hall etc doesn't even out the balance, and doesn't mean that they are, in essence, in reality or in intention, a charity. Keeping to the letter of the criteria which mean you can have the tax breaks doesn't mean that in spirit you are charitable.

I don't disagree with you, TOSN, but there are many parts of our society which we might organise differently if we were planning them from the ground up now, including charity law. But we are where we are and as pps have pointed out, it would be totally impossible to remove charitable status from these private schools without having to wind them up totally and sell off all their assets. If the schools then closed, it would cost a hell of a lot more to place all the children currently being educated at no (or £200) cost to the taxpayer than the 'lost' £200 revenue.

Except for the few uber rich who would educate abroad and those whose SEN children have been failed by the state system who would home educate.

But if the charitable status is what's keeping them this side of winding up and selling off (and I can quite see that you're right about that), then that does suggest its main significance is not in its benefit to others, doesn't it? Basically charitable status, in that case, is a way for private schools to keep themselves going - and that really doesn't seem right at all.

And I know I'm banging a drum here, but I think the idea of the school itself deciding what it's public benefit "duty" is and there being no Charity Commission oversight is outrageous. Obviously some schools will go above and beyond. But many won't. And if there's no one to tell them to, why should they?

You're right. There should be some oversight. But i'm guessing that one of the reasons there isn't it that to remove it would mean the school legally having to close and there not being enough money to place the children in the state system.

I don't understand what people hope to acheive by getting rid of independent schools.

It will not create equality, even in the state sector there is not equality in education. It will increase house prices further. Will you ban tutors, teachers from helping their own children. That's a terribly unfair advantage. Close all the places that offer extra lessons? No after school activities because we cannot all afford them?

Where does it end?

No, the reason that there isn't oversight is that two private schools took it to law, and got it removed.

But, TOSN, that's not the schools' fault is it, it's the law. I'm sure on previous threads that it's been stated that many (most?) private schools would rather not have charitable status but is a legal impossibly to have it removed.

I don't know: it just seems a bit daft to me to rail against something which is an historical anachronism (education used only to be provided by charities, churches and philanthropists), is legally defined by another body, is something the schools mostly don't actually want, would legally cause all these schools to close down and cost the taxpayer billions of pounds.

Just campaign for the closure of private schools on other grounds. (But while you're at it, don't use the "they don't take children with SEN"argument whilst my LEA continues to fail children with Hfa and dyslexia and instead knocks on ds's school's door asking it to take children they've failed. Thanks )

In E/W there is oversight, and it is a carried out by the Charity a commission see here

I think all the schools did was secure (at tribunal?) a ruling that their performance should be assessed against their stated charitable purpose, not other criteria (something the previous Government was trying to impose, but which was found unlawful).

"23. The Tribunal concluded (at paragraph 214) that a charitable independent school would be failing to act for the public benefit if it failed to provide some benefits for its potential beneficiaries other than its fee-paying students (unless this was a merely temporary state of affairs). However, it also decided that each case depends upon its own facts and (provided the de minimis threshold is crossed) it is a matter for the trustees of a charitable independent school (rather than the Charity Commission or the Tribunal) to decide how trustees’ obligations might best be fulfilled in the light of their circumstances"

Not very mathematic of me, but I bet we could manage an a extra 7% in the state sector without too much bother. We're always being told the royal family only cost us ten p and a button per household, and I'm sure they cost more.

£25m is the estimated additional cost of educating the additional 7% within the state sector.
I don't see how we could squeeze them in currently without adding on extensions to existing schools (if space is available) which will increase that 25bn during the initial years whilst building work takes place. Many schools are already short of space particularly in the bigger cities.
I know a school local to me has recently expanded intake by 25% but most of those children are in Portacabins. I'm not sure I would want my children spending everyday in a portacabin and I don't see why other children should put up with that either.
I tried state for my youngest and may return to state at senior stage. But the only primary option we have is the one where he was bullied and not catered for academically, so whilst I have a choice I will exercise it.
As I said before: As much as I would like equality for all children I am not going to use my children's head to break down the equality door.

25m? I think it's more like 3bn - but the current educational budget is 51-53bn.

It's funny how people who don't like private schools or cannot afford them keep making silly comments like the state could easily absorb them or they don't believe they offer benefits to the local community. Is it I wonder because they don't get the benefits, ask someone who is on a full bursary whether they have issues re private education.....

Where did 25 m come from btw. Our local schools are full to bursting

Perhaps we should ask Diane Abbott and half the Labour gov what they think of private schools.

I'm not sure that anyone has called to get rid of private schools, only that they should be truly private and the customer bear the full cost, in much the same manner that people who drive cars rather than take the bus bear the full cost.

Diane Abbott is a fucking hypocrite. In 2003 she said that white teachers, in particular women, couldn't handle black boys. Within weeks her son was placed in a private school with a mostly white intake and staff.
Twat.

I agree, socialists often say one thing and for themselves and their family do the complete opposite.

I cannot stand the women, she tried to play the race card stating that West Indian women go to the wall for their children..... As in you manage in the state system, I on the other hand will keep spouting socialist nonsense. God knows how she stays in her seat.

Never understood her remarks about white teachers. What a racist comment. If someone had said the same about black teachers they would have been strung up!

That paragraph of the Tribunal only shows that no external body can micromanage how a charity fulfills its aims, but does not remove any iota of the duty on the CC do investigate whether it does, and to intervene if insufficient is being done. Then (like with other charities) a plan is required on how to meet the charitable aims, and it is up to the charity to make the proposals, not have them externally imposed.

If a charity does not propose (and implement) sufficient measures in timely fashion, it can be closed.

There are various things schools can do (bursaries, community projects, sharing facilities, expertise, etc) and the size/wealth will vary between schools, so it makes sense to put the onus of improvement firmly on the charity not on the watchdog.