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.

@Barbadossunset you know full well that @Runnerbeansflower explained how it's not as simple as you assume.

Faffadoodledoo I’m not assuming it’s simple - just not impossible.
Do you think the Wolfson Trust and Nesta www.nesta.org.uk/blog/future-school-fundraising/ are wasting their time trying to organise ways for state school to fund raise?

Seen as parents are paying tax to fund their kids education if we start taxing school fees, the parents should be able to claim back the tax like childcare

the OP is not proposing a tax on school fees, just that private schools should not have charitable status, and thus their profits would be subject to tax.
If the schools wanted to reduce the tax liability, they could charge lower fees, or subsidise more places.
Making school fees tax deductable is a nonsense - subsidising elitism and encouraging more etonian twats.

So I guess we are down to the central problem with private schools having charitable status: that you have to pay to attend, and that their attendees grab a disproportionate amount of access to further education, and that this is a serious public harm, which tips the net public effect of private schools onto the negative side.

If anyone is prepared to engage with this point, I'm all ears.

Eton should be paying punitive taxes from now to eternity for foisting on us two of our worst prime ministers ever, Cameron D. and Johnson B., and instilling in them such blinding self-confidence that a very mediocre man indeed can make a competent UK leader.

Here's a list of the universities with the fewest number of state school pupils -thetab.com/uk/2021/02/11/revealed-the-unis-who-let-in-the-fewest-state-school-students-194852

In case it is easier to see the universities with the fewest state school pupils as a list. Not all the favoured MN's Russell Group.

Regent’s University London: 25 per cent

1. City and Guilds of London Art School: 30.3 per cent
2. Royal Academy of Music: 37.5 per cent
3. Courtauld Institute of Art: 40 per cent
4. Royal College of Music: 44.8 per cent
5. Royal Agricultural University: 62.1 per cent
6. The University of Oxford: 62.2 per cent
7. The University of Edinburgh: 63.2 per cent
8. University of Durham: 63.5 per cent

10. The University of St Andrews: 63.9 per cent 11. The University of Exeter: 64.5 per cent 12. Imperial: 65.9 per cent 13. LSE: 67.1 per cent 14. University College London: 67.3 per cent 15. Guildhall School of Music and Drama: 67.4 per cent 16. The University of Cambridge: 69.1 per cent 17. New College of the Humanities: 69.6 per cent 18. Oxford Brookes University: 71.2 per cent 19. The University of Bristol: 71.3 per cent 20. The University of Bath: 71.9 per cent 21. Met Film School Limited: 72.7 per cent 22. Royal Academy of Dramatic Art: 73 per cent 23. Arts Educational Schools: 73.3 per cent 24. Newcastle University: 75.5 per cent 25. King’s College London: 76.6 per cent

According to a 2019 UK Government report: "Just 7% of British people are privately educated." and "The research finds that power rests with a narrow section of the population - the 7% who attend private schools and 1% who graduate from Oxford and Cambridge."

www.gov.uk/government/news/elitism-in-britain-2019

So no, the elite schools for 7% of the population should not be receiving tax subsidies from ordinary people.

Every one of those colleges listed by Soma should be accepting roughly 7% private school pupils, 93% state school pupils.

State school pupils are never more stupid, less able than privately educated pupils.

It's just that the privately educated have greater economic resources in building success scaffolding for their children and there are well-established channels for funnelling privileged kids with rich families into further privilege, regardless of any actual talent and ability.

Sometimes, with disastrous consequences - e.g. Cameron D. and Johnson B.

Thank you, Eton, for foisting those particular recent examples on us. And still male-only.

@NewPotatoSalad i think it’s more like 20% who attend private sixth forms. Many of those unis have large intakes from abroad, how is that accounted for? What about places like royal college of music who will be taking a much higher percentage from private music conservatories (which are funded by government MDS awards based on talent but are still ‘private’). What percentage had scholarships and bursaries based on being gifted in some other way? What percentage of private school students study academic courses rather than vocational courses (which are generally only found at state sixth form colleges). What percentage of the private students were actually at specialist Sen schools? And if you want to be inclusive what percentage of the state school students went to academically selective schools?
so yes it’s important to look at these statistics but they aren’t necessarily that meaningful without some sort of analysis

And it may be an unpopular thing to say but ability is not the same in a selective school as at a non selective school. Work ethic isn’t the same at schools who select pupils either. And intelligence does have something of a genetic component.
schools are all totally different, a comp or grammar in a ‘nice’ area is self selecting for a not fit similar demographic of students and parents at most private schools. The ones that service the privileged upper classes are a minority. And does anyone think that those people would be any less privileged if they went to a different school? The connections would still be the same

Why are you justifying elitism and discrimination and cronyism, by questioning the statistics, insinuating that they aren't meaningful?

State school children have historically lost out to private school pupils, for elite university places. And continue to do so. It is not because the state school pupils are more stupid. It is because wealthier parents can buy privileges and networks for their children, regardless of how stupid those children are. For example, see Cameron, D, and Johnson, B.

@NewPotatoSalad because if you don’t consider sources of bias in your evidence it becomes meaningless. To consider anything properly you have to suspend your own prejudice and keep an open mind

Back in the early 1970s we had grammar schools that were feeders for the top universities. Everyone in my town sat the 11 plus. The best school in the area by far was the grammar with a large percentage of each year group going on to prestigious universities. Those parents who could afford it, only sent their children private if they failed the 11 plus. The private schools therefore focused much more on the arts, sports and music rather than academics. This all changed with the abolition of our local grammar. From then onwards, the brightest kids with wealthy parents were sent private and so the whole nature of the local private schools changed and they started competing on their academic success instead of arts etc.

If you want everyone to be given the same opportunities we need our grammar schools back. You cannot reach the same levels of academic excellence in an inclusive classroom.

Interesting take on the same topic: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/society-and-culture/state-schools-and-the-quiet-revolution-at-oxbridge

What abolition of state grammar schools?! They are thriving!!!! Creaming off the best talent in most areas, then holding themselves out to be State schools. Ignoring all the ‘private’ schooling through tutoring the back ground. Depriving ‘real’ State schools of the brightest talent.

There are very few areas left with grammar schools. Only 163 in the whole country and quite a few of those are double counted as girls and boys schools are listed separately.

gogrammarschool.com/grammar-schools-list/

@NewPotatoSalad from memory the 7% mentioned is up to Year 11 and 20% at sixth form. Not sure of the numbers of independently educated that opt for state 6th forms and colleges.

@Plantstrees interesting point about creative subjects, particularly if the long term prospects are seen as precarious or unrealistic. Even English and History grads seemed to be mocked over on The Student Room forum.

Not quite.
Private school itself has nothing to do with access to higher education. It's simply an obvious proxy for high aspiration families, and therefore an easy target to pin the blame on.
If we did the same analysis with pupils' backgrounds a disproportionate amount from middle class families go on to higher education. Again, regardless of school this class of people can buy expensive houses in good school catchment areas, pay for tutoring, enrichment etc.

The 'serious public harm' (as you so dramatically put it) comes from the underfunding of state schools.

Tearing down private schools won't make things 'equitable'. Those with £££ will still be able to give their kids advantages. The tax from the small number of private schools that remain will barely be enough to cover the extra state school places needed, let alone plug the gap from years of chronic underfunding.

Also as an immigrant myself, who went to a prestigious UK university the whole conversation about university admissions for UK students is strange.
Top universities have global competition ; for in-demand courses they'll have thousands of applicants, all with perfect grades. And mostly rich and privileged, because international students pay full fees. I got a scholarship, but the full fee was 16K a year IIRC and increased by 5% every year on top of that.

It's actually very easy to get into Cambridge if you choose the correct subjects:

Blue= applications, red = offers.

However the most competitive subjects will be the ones with the highest earning potential. Which attracts the most applications, from all aspects. Especially international students (whose parents often have ideas about the 'right' subjects to do), and less economically well off students (because they actually need well paid jobs, no Bank of Mum and Dad).

@OooErr agree the problem is lack of investment. I believe there are many who would choose state if there were reasonable options, including for those with Sen and health problems. And an overemphasis on higher education. It’s absolutely possible to earn more from a trade than from a profession and we need to encourage kids to capitalise on their talents.

When universities offer places to overseas students, do they take into account if the candidate has been privately or state educated?