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?

There may be a few private schools who deserve to be charities, but very few. Very few children who get FSM go to a private school.
As a child I would have needed a travel allowance and free or subsidised uniform to go to a private school, on top of a 100% bursary.

Oh and my ds school also gives free school meals to bursary students who would be entitled to fsm at state schools.

And the uniform is similar in price to all local state schools but cheaper than the state grammars a few miles away.

From where I am sitting there are no disbenefits to having some private schools in my area. Actually it's instructive to me to see what some of those kids are doing compared to mine. It will probably improve my kids overall exam scores by a half grade. (More than half joking!)

So keeping a few historic houses is more "beneficial" than educating a child?

What about music provision, at county level? Often a charity. You have to pay to take part of course so it's not strictly open to anyone.

Agree Karlos - many of the people have no bloody idea.
Some think that it is the PARENTS who don't pay tax !! FFS - and you worry about education!!

The State - ie you and me through increased taxes - would have to pay for the education of hundreds of thousands of extra kids. Really, yes.

So not only would you have to pay more in tax but your kids, yes yours, (and mine), would have to share their resources. Suddenly it wouldn't be so easy for your child to get a place in that lovely little primary that you have moved house just to be near.

And all those kids with bursaries getting a brilliant education, a chance... fuck that. Back to the local comp. Lowest common denominator. (Like I was and my kids were/are)

Huge consequences.

(Private hospitals, private hospices, private care of the elderly, private nursing, private homes, private cars - all convey real benefits. Public alternatives are available.)

They should surely be banned too. We should have no choice who we want to look after our kids or what we spend our money on - because that way it would be "fair" .

"Targeted regulatory change" - when it becomes apparent that you have a scooby what that might look like and the range of issues it would have to address, I'll take that seriously. Until then I will continue to regard your position as poorly thought through and largely motivated by class enmity.
A number of people, including myself,have raised the role of the independent sector in pioneering approaches to special needs education. Why has this been ignored - I suspect because inconvenient, also not important enough to warrant the attention of the class warriors. The left is happy to cant with sn when it suits its political ends and ignore them the rest of the time.

The State - ie you and me through increased taxes - would have to pay for the education of hundreds of thousands of extra kids. Really, yes.

Would it? Would a hike in fees to balance the removal of benefit from charitable status really see such a large scale flight from the private sector to state? I have seen no evidence for that - and plenty that suggests the converse is true.

I'm interested that you see the benefit to the tiny minority of bright kids who live near enough an independent school that offers the right kind of bursary and who have parents with the ability and knowledge to navigate the system is worth state support, despite the social stratification that leaves the rest to the 'lowest common denominator'.

Hive - you seem to be ignoring the fact that the children would have access to education without the provision of independent schools, in a way that would be more equitable and provide better equality of opportunity for the majority of children being educated. The provision already exists.

Parents choosing independent education (and I include my parents, and potentially me in the future) are choosing independent schools not because of a public good they are providing but because they want to buy what they see as better opportunities for their children.

And before anyone asks, I am also against charitable status for private hospitals.

Furthermore public money is actually given (not just tax relief here) to causes.
Think arts grants such as a grant to put a theatre production on. Which is only available if you pay....

It's a much wider issue really, than schools.

"Targeted regulatory change" - when it becomes apparent that you have a scooby what that might look like and the range of issues it would have to address, I'll take that seriously

I know quite a few Parliamentary drafters who wouldn't struggle too much with a piece of primary (and I think it would need to be primary, given the current legislative landscape) legislation that allows for the removal of charitable status from independent schools (and I'd chuck in hospitals for good measure) without the requirement for winding down the organisation/disposal of assets to be required.

My preference would be to consider how it to amend the tax regime to zero-rate tax relief for charities that fell into certain categories, which I think could be done through a secondary legislation route rather than the more cumbersome primary (cumbersome for both the schools and for Parliament).

Education is compulsory. Tax funded education is universally available.

Thst is why it is different to the National Trust and the Arts Council.

Would it? Would a hike in fees to balance the removal of benefit from charitable status really see such a large scale flight from the private sector to state?

I imagine my sons schools would have to drastically reduce the number of bursaries it currently provides. Or even if it doesn't need to reduce its number of bursaries it will no longer have the incentive to provide them. How many kids at private schools are currently in receipt of a means tested bursary? It is 400 at just my sons school so I imagine a lot more state school places would need to be funded nationally.

I'm afraid I found state provision not equitable at all! Unless provision is equal in state schools, you will find parents trying to get a better deal for their child by paying, or moving house if necessary.

Education is compulsory, but going to school isn't...

Its funny how the amount schools would lose is either nugatory or enough to cause a school to close, depending on which point people are arguing.............

Giving tax breaks to those who have decided to opt out of that universal provision

No one is giving parents tax breaks. #brikenrecord

^Furthermore public money is actually given (not just tax relief here) to causes.
Think arts grants such as a grant to put a theatre production on. Which is only available if you pay....^

It's a much wider issue really, than schools.

Indeed. It's about how we spend public money, and what is considered a public good worth spending public money on (j count tax relief as spending public money in this context). There will always be disagreements over what does and does not represent a public good. That's why we have elections, for a start.

And for me, the question is about whether the independent school sector provide an overall public good. For me, on the basis of the evidence, I don't think they do more harm than good, and therefore should not receive tax relief.

And I'm saying that in the very real context of probably sending my children to private schools when they reach secondary, because of the paucity of state options locally, which is caused in part by the signifiant numbers who choose private education. And so the merry go round turns....

Do you include private nursing homes in your desire to remove charitable status?

No one is giving parents tax breaks. #brikenrecord

Sorry, you're right. I was imprecise. Tax breaks are given to those the enable the parents to opt out of that universal provision, which many on here argue is then passed on to those same parents Ina commensurate fee reduction.

But is it passed on on a few reduction though jassy or do some schools use it to widen the bursary finding to families on low incomes and to improve facilities which are shared with state schools and the local community?

^passed on in a few reduction.

Do you include private nursing homes in your desire to remove charitable status?

Honestly? I haven't looked into it enough to have anything but a knee jerk reaction. You've prompted me to look into it further, so thanks.

I think it's much more clear cut on private hospitals. What is your view on that?

I'm afraid I found state provision not equitable at all! Unless provision is equal in state schools, you will find parents trying to get a better deal for their child by paying, or moving house if necessary

I don't disagree, but I don't think the state should part-fund that choice. And I think there is decent evidence to suggest that independent education (as well as grammar schools) make the inequality worse, not better.

And how would you preserve the tax exemptions of those schools who do open their opportunities to all regardless of means, or who provide unique sn provision not available in the state sector? Or can they go hang too?

Fee reduction. Aarrghhhh. Must learn to type!