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?

Intrestingly, it's only ever one side that insults the other, using terms like "little darlings" and insinuating that they don't want their children to mix with the "oiks".

they should be propping up the state sector

They already are by paying more tax.

Iggly - state schools are charities as well. My kids are at a state school, but I don't begrudge those who go private, any more than those who take posh holidays or buy expensive cars (though I do assume that the latter are compensating for something!).

Many parents at private schools sacrifice exotic holidays etc etc in favour of school fees. [shrug]

There are loads of charities that I would never benefit from. I don't propose their abolition.

State education is only 70 or so years old. All education was charitable before that. Some remained so. Some newer ones set up totally legally as charities (education still being a sufficient charitable purpose in law), others are indeed businesses.

There is no doubt whatsoever that private education would be able to carry on exactly as it is now without the charitable status. But as it cannot currently be removed without closing the charity, and all the upheaval and costs that would bring to the state sector, it's a seriously bad idea to close that number of schools. There's a school place crisis about to hit already. It's a very bad time to add to it.

Miss - do you think your very able child will end up working in POundland or unemployed if he isn't given the support you say he needs at school? Will he leave with really poor literacy and numeracy? Or is he still likely to achieve really highly, get good exam results and go to a good university?

I try not to worry about my clever Ds not getting a scholarship to the Royal College of Music, getting A*'s in all his GCSE's and ending up in the House of Lords. I'm too busy worrying that my child with ASD will leave school illiterate and end up in prison.

But hey ho, we clearly have different priorities.

FFS....I'm not quite sure who you think goes to these schools, but very very few of them match up to your decidedly narrow view of typical independent parents. Louboutins my arse! Most are entirely normal parents who have just worked their backsides off for years and years, saving up and advance spending inheritance from lovely GPs to try not to take up the places of the local good comp (to quote a previous poster)

Sam - it doesn't bother you that we don't have a meritocracy and that your children will probably lose jobs/university places to children who are less able than them but have had twice as much spent in their education?

"Sam - it doesn't bother you that we don't have a meritocracy and that your children will probably lose jobs/university places to children who are less able than them but have had twice as much spent in their education?

"

The £200 per pupil pa that comes from charitable status will make sod all difference to that.

Of course YANBU. I am not even that fussed about the money/taxes thing, but for selective schools for rich children (and I'm sure we're all clear that the state school parents can't actually all afford 'exotic holidays' with their spare cash by now, right?') to be anywhere near the word 'charity' is just wrong and distasteful. It allows them some sort of sense of false moral justification for their existence which frankly they're not entitled to, and I find it rather repellent and an insult to what charity actually means.

Shush, the average wage in the UK is 26K

The average cost of school fees for a day school is 14k.

People who can pay school fees are NOT economically 'ordinary' by my standards.

I don't begrudge private schools. Please tell me where I said that? I would and have considered using them myself.

I do begrudge them being set up as charities - when they are not.

There are other charities which I don't support but I wouldn't argue they weren't charities.

They only get these tax breaks because they have charitable status.

what tax break do they get precisely?

it seems that if their case is simply that they give out a few scholarships, why doesn't every private organization do that to get a tax break?

Basically, I am asking for details.

minifingers - maybe with the savings I'll be able to give them the deposit for a house, or generally give them a better childhood. The meritocracy point is silly - you might as well ban golf clubs or the masons, on the basis that people network there.

"Most are entirely normal parents who have just worked their backsides off for years and years, saving up and advance spending inheritance from lovely GPs to try not to take up the places of the local good comp (to quote a previous poster)"

Hang on- that's a new one. People use private schools in order not to take up places in state schools? I think I've heard everything now!!!!!

Minifingers, I have just read the thread and I think you are brilliant! I agree with everything you have said.

writtenguarantee
There is a list of 13 very prescriptive reasons for why an organisation can be a charity. To qualify for charitable status, the organisation has to prove they fulfil those criteria, and go on fulfilling that.

You can find that list here: charity list

Some (not all) private schools qualify as charities, usually under the 'advancement of education' and satisfy this through a combination of providing scholarships and bursaries to smart/in need/talented/poor children, and also by letting other schools use their facilities and teaching resources.
A number of years ago, the charities commission AND HMRC said they would be keeping a much closer eye on how they satisfy this. Just letting the local comp use the pitches once a year wasn't going to cut it. In response, lots of schools have really upped their game in letting local schools use their pools/theatres/sports grounds/music facilities. Others provide (free) lessons state school pupils in subjects the state schools don't offer. Others do other things. Either way, the Charities Commission judges them to be charities advancing education, just as they judge other charities to be advancing education.

What the OP seems to be saying is no matter how much 'charitable stuff' they do, the very fact they are a private school should debar them from having charitable status, so that the £100m-ish they are saving in corporation tax gets paid.

Some are saying that if this status did get paid, some schools might close and send more children into the state education system.

Personally, I think if it was taken away, a lot of children currently in state education but using the pool/music teachers/whatever of a private school would have that removed, and that would be a shame. And private schools would probably find a way of spending more money on projects through the year to reduce the 'profit' they make and therefore how much tax they pay. The biggest loser of this would be the scholarship fund.

Mini, I'm not suggesting that all families can afford independent schools even with many years of savings behind them, but I object to the suggestion that all parents using them are rich and able to spend their leftovers on handbags and shoes. Some are admittedly, but a large portion are not and it's unfair to lump everyone in the same boat.

Miss - do you think your very able child will end up working in POundland or unemployed if he isn't given the support you say he needs at school? Will he leave with really poor literacy and numeracy? Or is he still likely to achieve really highly, get good exam results and go to a good university?

It is very possible he could end up unemployed or working at poundland regardless of whether he gets the support he needs at school or not. I'm not really sure why you think a job at poundland is something to feel negative about; it's a job.
It isn't possible for my able son to leave school with poor literacy or numeracy for the simple fact that I have ensured he has these skills to a good level myself. When his school didn't provide an appropriate curriculum for him I supported his education myself, that didn't stop him being bored at school and feeling that he wasting his time attending. I argued with the school for some differentiation but it never came.
Will he get good exam results? Well I don't know because I am not capable of seeing what the future holds. I had the capability to get very good grades at school but I didn't get them because my mum didn't have the skills to support me and I went to a dreadful school where I was far more able than the next most able person in my year group and I was taught at the level of the average in my group, hence I learnt very little, got bored, stopped trying and didnt reach anywhere near my potential.
I didn't go to uni when I left school as children from my school didn't do that.
I went to an RG uni as a mature student and got a very good classification of degree. School should have ensured that I could do that as a school leaver. All children need to receive the level of education required to reach their potential whether they have learning difficulties or not, whether they are state educated or not. Each child is equally deserving of reaching THEIR potential.

YADNBU

It probably wouldn't be set up that way today, but it's a historical thing because education is deemed to be a charitable aim (which covers a lot more charities than schools) and it would be VERY difficult to change the structures of schools which are educational trusts. Auntiestella covers it well.

Look at it this way - would you rather the private schools in the UK, which are used by a fairly wide range of people (albeit not in total numbers) to be run by a not for profit sector with educational aims, or by a blatantly profiteering business? My kids go to state schools, but I don't think that businesses trying to make a profit should have any place in the education sector.

I'm too busy worrying that my child with ASD will leave school illiterate and end up in prison.

Plenty of people with a clutch of good GCSE's end up in prison. Although prison does have a significant illiterate and innumerate population becoming a criminal is not the reserve or the less qualified or less able.
Rich people can become criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts......

I am probably what you would call a "well off parent" as my DH earns a great salary. He also pays a whopping amount of tax.

Our DD1 went to private school for 6th form and DD2 has been there since Y6. However we don't live a lavish lifestyle and we budget for their schooling.

I work as a social worker and am very aware of the gap between what my DD's have and what other children have. I hope i redress that balance by doing my very best for the children and families i work with.

written guarantee - I think they can recover bank interest on funds in the bank (not that there's much interest payable nowadays). They can't recover VAT, though. I think the £100m is a bit of a guess, because if they did pay tax on their endowments or advance fees, they would look to other forms of funding.

Private companies can't become charities if they are profitmaking. Also, they have to have charitable aims, which, in accordance with the Statute of Uses 1601, includes education.