Is it justifiable that public schools have charitable status leading to massive tax savings, but state schools don't?

[motherogod]

Many posters here have defended private education in terms of parental choice - fine - but I'd like to know how it can be justified that public schools have charitable status, particularly as half of them then have an 80% deduction on the rates they pay, whereas schools run by councils have to pay business rates. Academies, foundation schools and voluntary aided schools also receive an 80% reduction.

I don’t think removing charitable status would affect the power balance. Wealthy people will still send their children to them.

The balance politicians have to consider is that if you drive too many children out of the private sector then all it does is increase pressure on the underfunded state sector. My two are in private schools so my taxes are funding a state education system I am not using. If I were to move my DC to the state sector I would have more disposable income but i wouldn’t pay more tax so I would be better off but the state would be worse off.

From recollection a lot of private schools have looked into losing charitable status but found it very onerous to do so.

@motherogod Colston's Girls' School in Bristol switched from private to state. I’m sure there are others.

There is a big difference between Public schools and private schools. Public - Eton, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby et al have funds. Private schools range enormously and I would argue that the small local independent private schools who do not have regular donations from former pupils maybe struggling.

Changes which could cause local indies to close include the swop to Business rates, changes to the teacher pension scheme and of course pupil numbers in a recession.

Yes, to answer a question above, independent schools can become state schools under the free school/academy programme.

I see you are using Eton as an example. It is amazing to me, how many people think that all private/indy schools are equitable with somewhere like Eton or Harrow or Westminster etc etc. They are not. Most are small city schools, with no excess income, or alumni contributions. They basically break even.

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I don’t think removing charitable status would affect the power balance. Wealthy people will still send their children to them.

The balance politicians have to consider is that if you drive too many children out of the private sector then all it does is increase pressure on the underfunded state sector. My two are in private schools so my taxes are funding a state education system I am not using. If I were to move my DC to the state sector I would have more disposable income but i wouldn’t pay more tax so I would be better off but the state would be worse off.

I suppose everyone’s taxes are at least partly funding the charitable status of the schools, and everyone’s taxes are also funding a whole raft of services they may never need to avail of, the salaries of politicians and advisers they didn’t vote for, the expenses claims of hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords that don’t need the money etc etc. They’re also funding those who avail of state services maybe partly because not enough money was spent on their state education. Etc.

I have no problem with my taxes being used for services I don’t use. What I was saying was if I were to move my children out of the private sector the cost to the state would be greater than any “charitable” benefit my DC currently get from taxes.

Education is a charitable purpose in its own right. Schools are providing services that will benefit society as a whole, namely turning out well educated employable citizens.

Academies, foundation schools and voluntary aided schools also receive an 80% reduction

So, you want to take charitable status away from these schools as well? You do realise that this is also some 80% of all schools. There are hardly any council run schools any more. More primary, than secondary, but still the majority are now not council run. The funding has changed, things have moved on. You have not thought this through.

One of the grants from the newly established National Lottery went towards a spiffing new swimming pool. At Eton.

Perhaps the non-Etons that are flailing should consider going down the state route. I've to go now but I'd like to thank everyone who engaged with my question - it really was asked out of curiosity and from a not fully informed position.

That said, I do find the A level debacle to be a clear manifestation of unfairness in educational access, and I am really saddened at many many of the current and last governments' policies in relation to education and childhood inequality. I lived in the UK under Labour and benefitted greatly from sure start centres, one o'clock clubs and the whole infrastructure that seemed to be dedicated to creating a better start for all children, and less alienation for parents. I trust the research that concludes equal societies are better for absolutely everyone, and (in other countries) it's a policy area I've worked in.

To my mind, it seems that while charitable status may technically describe some activities of these schools, the reasons for them to maintain that status isn't really defensible in terms of the spirit of what a charity should be - and I don't think that it can be justified by the argument that removing it would then mean more students would then be in the state sector - so what? Then fund the state sector better, spend energy on lobbying for that.

I also don't think offering occasional use of their facilities justifies it - if their charitable status is predicated on their contribution to education the use of a swimming pool isn't within the remit of that. The idea that they turn out well educated citizens doesn't really wash when it's such a tiny minority of usually already wealthy people that then acquire positions of power due to their parents' ability to pay huge fees.

I don't care if people here send their children to private/public schools (the nomenclature is tricky), a lot of people would like to be able to ensure their children are privileged and have an excellent education, but I really don't find any of the arguments for charitable status compelling or reasonable. Thanks again

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

I have no problem with my taxes being used for services I don’t use. What I was saying was if I were to move my children out of the private sector the cost to the state would be greater than any “charitable” benefit my DC currently get from taxes.

Ok thanks

The private school that my children attend is just an ordinary limited company. Not status or reductions or anything.

There are hardly any council run schools any more

Your statement isn't true.
We have 500 schools,only about 85% of primaries are LA (council) maintained.
More secondary are academies locally.

In 2018, according to the DfE, 50% of children attended an academy. (
The programme has slowed since then in my LA, with very few school choosing to convert. Only those judged inadequate are converting as they are forced to.

IndiaPlace I did caveat there are more secondaries, then primaries. 50% overall yes, but in secondaries 80%.

@Penguin007

Well, what about the fact that some people pay school fees for 15 years, while also paying tax towards state schools, but have never used them?

The state system would be swamped if all the private school children had to be educated in it too.

And lots of private schools are barely breaking even.

sorry - forgot to answer this.

Taxes are used for a range of services you might never use. It would be interesting to see a cost benefit analysis if there was less private education - it's not a simple equation.

I don't think the state system would be swamped - the state has a duty to educate all children so there would just need to be more investment.

Not sure why the fact that they're barely breaking even is a cause for concern or why that means they should retain charitable status instead of becoming a state school. Under CCF guidelines, they need to have a sizeable reserve to ensure continuity of operations for a certain length of time. If they can't, well then maybe they shouldn't have that status. If they don't have that status and are in effect businesses then they should be better run or join the state sector.

The private school my DS attends does offer a number of full bursaries, has taken in refugees and where a parent has died offers a number of places per year. This is in addition to the facilities being used by the community.

All of the ban private schools, removal of tax breaks and charitable status is not going to fix the state education system.

As others have said, if you’re going to start on this road then you have to review all of the Institutions that also benefit from the same.

the state has a duty to educate all children so there would just need to be more investment.

Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face? Close charitable private schools but then have to use more taxpayers money to finance an expansion in state provision. How does that help? It sounds more like you just want to punish those who go private rather than improve education for everyone else.

@user1497207191

the state has a duty to educate all children so there would just need to be more investment.

Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face? Close charitable private schools but then have to use more taxpayers money to finance an expansion in state provision. How does that help? It sounds more like you just want to punish those who go private rather than improve education for everyone else.

I didn't say close private schools, I said their charitable status doesn't seem to be justifiable by any of the reasons offered here or anywhere else I've looked for reasons.

I think the government should spend more on education anyway - if some more money comes from the shift from charitable status, all to the good. If it contributes to a more equal society, even better.

Why should private schools benefit from the taxation of the general population in any way shape or form? Some access to their facilities decided by and controlled by the schools is hardly a reason; the only other reason offered here is that a small number of kids would end up in the state sector - again that's hardly a justification.

So we all ship our children from fee-paying to state schools, and the private/public school close. The government then has to pay for each additional child in a state school. The schools would be filled to bursting. Do you think they would improve? In reality, parents would then pay for tutoring instead, or send their children out of the country.

while charitable status may technically describe some activities of these schools, the reasons for them to maintain that status isn't really defensible in terms of the spirit of what a charity should be

Charitable status is however a legal and technical thing.

That's why a proper proposal, that covers the legal and technical aspects, wouid be helpful.

And yes, it wouid be pretty chaotic in the year or two around enactment, because so many schools would simply close. There just isn't the slack in the system to accommodate the influx and I wouldn't really want to have a child in either system at the point it happened. The increase needed to the education budget for schools would wouid mean paring back elsewhere, and I don't think there are any remaining easy options for cuts.

I'd only do this as a policy at a time when the nation was fairly flush (or believed itself to be). And definitely not whilst the demographic bulge is still passing though

I didn't say close private schools, I said their charitable status doesn't seem to be justifiable by any of the reasons offered here or anywhere else I've looked for reasons

It's justified by the law. Education is a legally defined charitable purpose.

Removing charitable status, in accordance with current law, requires winding up the charity. So for those schools which are charities (with the possible exceptions of the ones mentioned by name in other acts, such as Eton and Dulwich) it is in effect closure.

Unless there is new provision that permits the transfer of charitable assets to private hands (not really welcome, a charter for abuse) but that might be possible depending in the detail of the proposal. Without the proposal on how, and what changes to the law will bring it about, it is going to mean closures.

I don't think there's going to be any appetite to set a precedent that a government can nationalise charities.