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?

It's outrageous when you think sixth form colleges aren't even exempt from paying VAT like all other schools.

I came from a poor family and applied for a scholarship for a very prestigious private school. I thought I had no chance. These schools were not for people like me.

I remember going for the interview and exam seeing everyone getting out of their range rovers and thinking, what was I thinking I have no chance. I had no computer, no money for books. Everyone else had had private tuition. I sat down for my interview and I could feel
My legs almost give way with fear.

5 days later I got the call that I would be offered a fully funded place. My siblings are all on benefits while I have gone on to quality as a social worker, a teacher and I am currently at University going a PHD.

I would never have achieved that if I'd gone to the local comprehensive and by going to private school I have been able to pay taxes rather than relying on benefits which would have surely happened.

I think they should get charity funding to allow low income children a chance to make something of their life.

Phil Cancer Research UK predominantly funds pre-clinical research- i.e. basic science (looking for biomarkers etc) and lab/ animal models. The pharma companies come in when you get to clinical trial stage (i.e. trying it in real patients) because these trials are phenomenally expensive and CRUK couldnt afford them or administer them.

user1481754448, do you realise how patronising that sounds? I'd hope that you'd have more empathy as a social worker.
Plenty of us who are from poor backgrounds didn't attend private schools. We're not on benefits either. Funny that.

"I would never have achieved that if I'd gone to the local comprehensive and by going to private school I have been able to pay taxes rather than relying on benefits which would have surely happened."

If you were the sort of child capable of finding out about, sitting and passing exams for a prestigious public school, I think it extremely unlikely that you would have ended up on benefits if you had gone to another school.........

"If the fees go up by 20% by losing the vat status then I think a lot of the smaller private schools.will.close.as.it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for many parents."

There is no VAT on fees. Education is exempt (same exemption applies to university fees, btw). But this could change with Brexit.

"So if they don't benefit from their charity status they're happy to give it up then?"

Right now, no. Because the only way to give it up is to close down.

But if it ever became possible to convert charity-owned assets into privately held ones, so schools could just stop being charities but continue to exist, I there will be widespread take up.

People are choosing to take offence from my post. The local comp
Schools in my area were horrendous. Prior to apply for private school I was failing all my exams and was told I was 'special needs'. I was put in bottom set for everything with all the disruptive children and no matter how hard I tried I learnt nothing as I was not remotely stretched or supported. Under those conditions I would not have passed any gcse's.

There's some great state schools. But in my area they were not.

Before I went to one of the best schools in the country I could barely read and write. I was given my place based on my interview and drive not my academic skills which were poor.

I still wouldn't say I'm academically clever, but the school brought out the best in me. All children deserve to go to a school like that.

Lots of the private schol kids are sent over from abroad so they aren't kids who would've been in the U.K. state system.

"They are not charities so should not receive charity status and tax relief"

That's an interesting point. Right now, the provision of education is itself a a charitable aim. Are you suggesting that it should no longer be classed as such? Because that would affect many more charities - ie all those which have provision of education as one of its aims or as sole aim. And I think they would have sometime to say about that.

That's one of reasons why I mentioned stakeholders in my earlier post when I was asking is anyone was aware of any concrete proposals to alter the law in UK charities to permit transfer of charitable assets to private ownership.

I''m not taking offense.

I am just skeptical. If you had the drive to apply to this prestigious public school, how come you could barely read and write?

And a fully funded bursary? They are like hen's teeth.

"Lots of the private schol kids are sent over from abroad so they aren't kids who would've been in the U.K. state system."

Genuine question - What are the basic stats? How many pupils(by key stage age groups) are in independent schools - both businesses and charities? How many pupils are from families resident overseas (again in each type of schoolH?

"I still wouldn't say I'm academically clever, but the school brought out the best in me. All children deserve to go to a school like that."

So how do you make that happen? In my town many children have been failed educationally from the age of 2 to 19. My daughter has never attended a good school or a good nursery. Such provision is simply not available.

The legal definition and classification of a charitable organisation dates back decades, and has been regularly reviewed. I think the last big update to the Charities act was 2011, but I'm sure others know more than me (although some posters on this thread are showing their laughably shaky grasp of law...)

There is quite of lot of reporting required by charities to prove they are fulfilling their purpose and obligation in order to maintain their status. I'm the trustee of a charity, and it's something we had to do fairly regularly

As others pointed out, a change in the wording of the law would have fairly wide-reaching implications for other organisations for what is in the grand scheme of things, a relatively small amount of money

It is certainly dwarfed by the tax breaks given to the Church of England HQ for the interest on their vast investments in the stock market and property.
Closing that loophole would net far more to the treasury, while individual churches can still carry on raising money at a local level to pay for their running costs

I think most people accept that if you were setting up the system now private schools would not have charitable status with a few possible exceptions. However, we are stuck with the situation that does exist. It is very difficult to stop being a charity once you are one. You would have to shut down and disburse the assets to another charity for a similar purpose. If fee rises due to loss of charitable status drove a fifth of parents out of the private sector then any financial benefit would be minimal as they would be using their share of funding in the state system.
(We do have DC in the private sector and we are net contributors of tax at the moment)
I think the underfunding of the state education system is a national scandal and should be addressed but I don't think the that chartitable status for private schools is the source of the problem.

User I agree that there are great state schools but here on MN it seems unacceptable to poin t out that many schools actually did (do?) have a detrimental effect on students. I improved my chances at exams by being ill and being able to spend time studying at home. As opposed to those valuable survival skills I spent all my time honing at school!

I haven't used private but I am glad they are there as an alternative even if only to the minority. The parents often pay both taxes for state and fees for private.

Only 5% of privately educated students are from overseas mostly in boarding school contributing more that £30k a year per pupil into the uk economy. So no they wouldn't move into the state sector but that revenue stream would be lost if schools closed.

Olympia, you are claiming that private schools are benefiting at the expense of the taxpayer. That is an economic argument, and quite frankly undermines your moral argument because it is so overly simplistic.

a change in the wording of the law would have fairly wide-reaching implications for other organisations for what is in the grand scheme of things, a relatively small amount of money

This is the thing- these things are very hard to legislate for. You cant have a law which says "provision of education is a charitable aim but not for posh kids", because , define posh. What if they're rich but also have SEN? It's very difficult to define disadvantage or rather, to say where it stops. Anyway, there are lots of charities which cater largely to the well off/ middle class- many of the heritage/ cultural organisations for a start.

You do know that that £350m doesn't actually exist? It's not sitting in the schools' bank accounts, it's an amount the government could have if school rolls stayed the same and if government claimed a percentage of their income
It's like saying the government is loosing £1000m/ year because chocolate isn't taxed at the same rate as alcohol. If they imposed spirit duty on chocolate people would buy fewer chocolate bars, switch to fruit, bring it back from France etc.

To be annoyed that private schools have charity funding

You missed "some" out of your title. It isn't an absolute that private schools receive charitable status. The one I went to didn't. The one my daughter is at doesn't. None of the ones we have looked at for her secondary education have.

Capricorn - if their students aren't from the UK then these schools are making a valuable contribution to the balance of payments by selling educational services, and they should be thanked rather than penalised for this. Factor in also the parental visits, personal spending, etc, and the UK is quids in....

There is a moral case for abolishing private schools because it limits social mobility.

But there is no economic case. There is no discount on taxes for a parent choosing to send their child to a private school, so there would be no additional funding for the state from the abolition of all private schools. There would be additional demand for places in state schools from it though, so the strain on the state would increase. The net effect would be negative on the state system.

Charitable status is a red herring. It just means the schools are not taxed on surplus income on their activities. If the costs of the school over time equal the fee income, there would be no tax anyway. They do not receive donations from the government and in the main they do not receive private donations either. And they pay VAT just like any other enterprise. The problem is that the word "charity" conjures up all sorts of images of benevolence in people's minds, but really it just means it's exempt from corporation tax.

Noneed - two problems with abolishing private schools:

1. how would you do it? If people want to provide education to others who are willing to pay for it, I don't see how or why the government should interfere, unless certain minimum standards aren't being upheld and/or the children are in danger.

2. when the state has a monopoly over something, it is generally very bad at it. My DCs' state school often loses pupils to the private sector when it performs badly - when it improves, pupils come to the state school from local private schools. It gives the head and staff a welcome kick up the backside. The private schools also give some measure of what can be achieved by the cleverer kids.

I've found the people who disagree with private schools have no problem paying for private tuition for their children after school.

I agree in principle that it would be better if private schools didn't exist. But until state schools improve and get to the standard of private schools they will exist. And rich people live in affluent areas with better state schools while the poorer people don't have access to as good state schools a lot of the time.

The school where I went to has a gcse pass rate of between 100% and 98%. It was non selective. No state school would achieve that without being selective and in a very affluent area with the sort of parents who care about their child's education.

I also think it's good for you socially. I am very well spoken and have good manners. I've been praised for my manner everywhere I've worked. I wouldn't have learnt that from state school.

I also didn't even know what an illegal drug was until I was 18 and went to university. So it sheltered me from a lot which I'm pleased about.

If I had the money I would send my son to private school. He's currently in the process of being considered for a bursary for the school I went to as a child. I'm glad my school has charity status as it allows these bursaries to be possible.