Private Schools being able to hold charitable status

[IdiotCreatures]

I went and looked at a building associated with a local independent school yesterday, as it's always piqued my curiosity.
The school is run by the Woodard Corporation. I looked at their books on company house yesterday.
The amount of money moving through them is ridiculous. If people want to pay for a private education, then surely the institutions should be taxed.
Apart from a small number of scholarships, the average person is not benefiting from these institutions.
In the case of Eton, as pointed out on another thread, these schools are probably leading to damage to society and definitely do not promote the idea of equality.

@Arkestra The only thing I can see that might be an issue for some independent schools is if they are used to operating like a sole owner with one person making all the main decisions. But surely they already have governing bodies who make the decisions?
And you can not serve on the governing body if bankrupt or have a criminal conviction for fraud. But why would that be onerous for private schools?
Everything else is basic good practice and not a big deal at all.

@antelopevalley yes I agree it really shouldn't be that hard. But I think that the governing bodies are perhaps not very oriented towards that end of things - they are caught between their idealised self-image as a charity and the reality of what they actually are. So I can well imagine that, as @TullyApplebottom admits, complying with even elementary oversight is genuinely difficult for them.

@ark Then I am genuinely shocked by their incompetence.

The public benefit from private education is that it doesn’t cost the government £5k per child to educate them in the state system.

Also I don’t send my DC to prep school in order to attend a RG uni in future (as asserted by a PP). I don’t mind if they decide to skip uni altogether and become an entrepreneur or join a family business. They’ll have choice and opportunity to develop and learn however they choose.

That is a false idea.
People who pay fees for private schools are having those fees subsidised by the taxpayer.
They are choosing to use private schools.
I do not say well I saved my local library x amount of money by buying my own books. The public service is there, it is up to me whether I use it or not. You would be outraged if I said as I am "saving" the taxpayers money by not using the local library, they should subsidise my expenditure on buying books.

We currently have monthly standing orders set up to pay £200 to Teenage Cancer Trust and £200 to Mind. Add VAT to our school fees and that money stops being paid to the charities and goes straight to the government to be pissed up the wall (aka poured into the black hole otherwise known as the NHS).

P.s. everyone should use libraries!! It’s the only “free at point of use” service in the UK that I value and appreciate.

@TowelChair so your message is taxpayers need to subsidise your children's private school fees so you can give to charity. Wow!

@antelopevalley I don't know whether you're being deliberately obtuse or you just enjoy annoying people with your poorly articulated points. In any event, if you are so against private schools or the way they are run, just don't send your children. Simple

@antelopevalley I don’t think you’re able to grasp the concept. Or you’re just being obtuse 😂

@TowelChair "The public benefit from private education is that it doesn’t cost the government £5k per child to educate them in the state system."

Private education has a whole bunch of effects, both positive and negative. Which of them you consider most important - which you consider good or bad even - will depend on your more general political philosophy. For example, you might consider the production of characters like Boris Johnson either a positive or a negative reflection on the value of Eton as an institution.

Personally I consider the disbenefit from attendees of private schools grabbing a disproportioniate amount of access to further education is a very serious public harm caused by private education that outweighs the positives.

I agree with you that it's wide of the mark to say that access to improved credentials via e.g. Russell Group unis is the sole motivation of everyone sending their child to private school - obviously that would be a drastic oversimplification, and is clearly not a motivation at all for you in particular. But - on the other hand - an assertion that it's not a significant part of very many people's motivation (even though they may not wish to voice this openly)? That seems equally wide of the mark.

I know exactly what concept you are promoting. I am disagreeing with you.
Not using a public service, but taking a taxpayer subsidy to use a private service is expecting taxpayers to fund your choices.
Rich people i.e. top 5% of richest households often seem to struggle to grasp the concept that this is about asking for taxpayer subsidies. Where do you think money comes from to provide a subsidy? Do you think because actual money does not change hands that it does not count? Do you also think the temporary cessation of tax pay people pay when buying a more expensive house was not a taxpayer subsidy to the well-off?
Money does not have to actually change hands. Being told you do not have to pay money to the government that would otherwise be owed, is a taxpayer subsidy. It is pretty basic economics.

£8.5m was donated to Eton in 2018 - worth about £62,000 per pupil and Gift Aid could have added another £15,500 of taxpayers money. Compare this to the £7,000 average funding per pupil in state schools

What’s stopping state schools from fund raising?

The country and world would be a better place if rich elites actually had to spend time with us commoners. State educating would improve if rich people had to use it, because properly funding it would suddenly become much more of a priority if their children were affected too.

@Nellodee that is a fair point. I can't remember the country might be Finland or Norway that doesn't allow private schools.

Oh @Barbadossunset where to start with your lack of awareness? Which rather proves @Nellodee 's point.

Some posters have said that if private education was abolished then state schools would improve as the rich and influential parents would make sure it did.
As a pp said earlier, what is about private school parents that they can magically improve these schools? Are private school parents somehow superior to state school parents in that they could somehow work wonders whereas state school parents can’t?
Isn’t that incredibly patronising?

Why?
Private schools appeal to former pupils for funds - why can’t state schools do that? You’ve said your children were state educated and have been successful - maybe they’d like to contribute to their old school.

As a pp said earlier, what is about private school parents that they can magically improve these schools? Are private school parents somehow superior to state school parents in that they could somehow work wonders whereas state school parents can’t?
Isn’t that incredibly patronising?

No but if you abolished private schools, you then force the politicians & Royal children into the state schools. The people who really can make difference will make that difference.

However it will never happen for another 101 reasons but I can dream on.

No but if you abolished private schools, you then force the politicians & Royal children into the state schools. The people who really can make difference will make that difference

Plenty of politicians send their children to state school - why aren’t they making a difference?

To question whether they provide public benefit is legitimate. To say they are subsidised is untrue, and not legitimate. If you cannot argue your case honestly, maybe it’s not that strong.

Far more onerous than those required of CICs, which is what they all will no doubt become if denied charitable status - still able to operate on a not for profit basis, but no longer subject to the public benefit requirement or CC oversight.
I’m at a loss to understand what that will achieve, other than gratification for the mean spirited. It doesn’t feel like the solution to the problems of the state sector, let’s put it that way.

Who was the last front leader to send their kids to the local school, particularly a busy city school?

Boris, Keir and Nicola are all private schoolies.

Cameron sent his children to state schools. Blair certainly did. Tons of politicians do. It makes no sodding difference. I’m as middle class and sharp elbowed as it gets and I had to take my LEA to fucking tribunal to get the right outcome for DS. Schools and education authorities don’t listen to parents, whoever they are. We all know this.

Boris, Keir and Nicola are all private schoolies

Do you mean they went to private schools or their children do/did? If the former, then presumably it was the choice of their parents.
I’d be surprised if Keir Starmer educates/educated his children privately as I’m sure we’d have heard more about it considering the uproar when Diane Abbott sent her son to a private school.
What is a ‘front leader’?

I was going to write front bencher and changed to leader but never deleted the front bit.

Whatever its not going to happen we have a two teir education system long with health care. I can't see the wheel turning back on either of them.