Not to send my children to private school even though I can afford it

[AdamRyan]

I believe in comprehensive education and think children should all be educated together, to improve social mobility and prevent a "brain drain" where less privileged children go to some schools, and more privileged go to others.
Am I in the minority and being naive?

YANBU - comprehensive schools are the way to go
YABU - I'd send my children private if I could

He crumbles a bit when in the spotlight on selling his policies.

More comfortable in opposition on attack

The press are still easy on him but still it was fairly poor

Of course I’ve heard it, i didn’t however apply it because I didn’t and don’t consider it relevant to my point.

Oh dear. 🙄

I don’t envy Starmer at all tbh. I don’t think he’s a stupid man at all, but he’s having to walk a tightrope between diametrically opposed sections of the Labour Party, AND appeal to the wider electorate. He comes across as New Labour and a pragmatist, and that is something that is deeply hated by a not insignificant portion of the Labour base who would rather destroy the Labour Party than compromise on ideological purity. He knows if he wants to win an election decisively then he needs the Labour Party to at least appear to be united
I don't envy him either.
Some parts of the Labour Party need to grow up and decide if they actually want to govern or not.

I hate what Momentum and similar has done to the Labour Party. We could have had a good, broad party that had overarching principles, whilst accepting that in a broad Church there's people who disagree respectfully on certain topics. Instead we've got people claiming anything centre group is basically Tory, lots of privileged students/young adults moaning about whatever their latest pet topic is (and it's rarely anything useful like workers' rights, pay and conditions, run of the mill public policy), and a lot of petty infighting.

I always rather liked Ken Clarke in the Conservatives for this. He was more One Nation Conservatism in his outlook but served alongside others with different views on a range of issues. Some Labour figures are good at this as well, but it sometimes feels like the adults have left the room.

I do think he’s clever, but I don’t think he’s deft.

Fascinating.

Some would rather not govern and instead sit on the guidelines being ideologically pure. For that contingent it’s got to be all their way or none of their way.

Not to mention, OP, if you do have that amount of disposable income there's lots you can do to use it to benefit your kids in other ways... I know plenty of privately educated people who came out of school with very little to show for it.
Your kids could benefit from savings you've put away for them when they're 18/19/20 - to fund apprenticeships, college, uni, travel, training, starting a business...

I do wonder if this government would be offering the same shit pay deal to state school teachers they are now if their own children actually went to state schools…

I repeat, if anyone has evidence that a school is not acting properly as a charity then they must provide it to the charity commission. It’s a serious allegation.

I am not sure why you think that what you’ve posted here supports your view that independent schools are not actually charities.
I think perhaps what you really are saying is that while they may satisfy the legal definition of a charity, that legal definition should change, because it is out of line with what the public thinks should be charitable. That’s a legitimate argument, but I think you need to say how you would change it. Presumably you would still want independent schools devoted to particular SEN to be able to operate as charities, for example? Or would you not?

That should surely be a matter for parental choice. Not the government’s businesss.

I think you’ve quoted the wrong person?

In all the above, no one has mentioned KS's proposal to put much greater emphasis on oracy in classrooms, which I thought was much the most interesting and progressive element of today's education policy statement. Judging by the BTL comments, most Times' readers agreed. It's well worth a look if you're interested. I will endeavour to post a share token, but I haven't always succeeded when I have tried before. It may, sadly, remain behind the paywall.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-ability-to-express-yourself-is-something-every-child-should-master-rgk997s32

And, for the record, education is exempt from VAT under EU rules.

'And, for the record, education is exempt from VAT under EU rules.'

For the record - BREXIT. Unless you miss the memo about the UK being 'free' now from the EU and their crazy rules...

So far whoda, there's not been great progress on the bonfire of EU legislation!

I think private schools comply with the law as written. But this "a person who cannot reasonably afford to meet a particular need by purchasing at the full cost price the service which it is the charity’s purpose to provide" basically covers 98% of the population and so private schools can choose to offer bursaries to a small number of relatively affluent families and this count as "charity" under the law.

My point is they are using that clause to take advantage of tax benefits. It's not ethical, if not illegal and I fully support closing that loophole.

Bursaries are specifically targeted at lower income families. You are confusing them with scholarships, which are means blind but now largely honorific. As an illustration, my DS is a music scholar at a well known school; we get 10% fee remission and one free music lesson on each instrument a week. That was by far the most generous of the scholarship offers he had, the others involved free lessons but no or only minimal fee reduction.
independent schools are strongly incentivised to get bright students in via bursaries; both of my children’s schools are currently devoting huge effort to this. I can see no evidence for the assertion schools are behaving “unethically”; at the end of the day if they meet the criteria for a charity they are a charity. That’s not a “loophole”. If you want to change it you will have to change the definition of what is charitable; how would you do this?

'My point is they are using that clause to take advantage of tax benefits. It's not ethical, if not illegal and I fully support closing that loophole.'

They are. They know they are, the government knows they are, the parents know they are. But it's in their best interests to argue otherwise.

The issue for many schools is that the things they can do to actual provide more 'public benefit' to try to grasp onto that tenuous claim at charity status are the OPPOSITE of what the parents of the pupils want or expect.
Spend millions on a state of the art Science and Sports Centre ( as one school we work with has done) for pupils - then SHARE those facilities in some way with outsiders? Limit the time when the school pupils can have access? No way.
And why should parents support that when their extortionate fees funded it in the first place?
They don't want kids from the local comp accessing the pool or labs. So they don't.

My kids schools share facilities with local schools; they invite their pupils to careers fairs, science fairs, and other events; they run STEM and classics workshops; my son goes out to local primary schools with his string orchestra to do workshops with the kids. I have zero problem with any of this and I have never met a parent who did. On the contrary I’m very pleased that DS’s musical opportunities are being enhanced.

'Bursaries are specifically targeted at lower income families.'

Again - actual facts and figures contradict this claim. Otherwise private schools wouldn't be on the verge of losing charitable status. The majority of children at private schools have parents and families in the top % of earnings and wealth.

Most bursaries and funding or discounts are still going to families who can afford to pay the full whack.

The percentage of children from low socio-economic families NOT paying fees and on actual scholarships is around 1%.

But, again, why argue this point? Are private schools for the wealthy? Yes.
Is that okay - yes. it's like buying a Landrover over a Prius as the family car, if you want to and can afford it ( and don't give a stuff about the environment) why not? If you choose to go private is that your free choice? yes

Will some people be impressed? Yup. Will some thing you're wasting your money or judge you? Sure.

Should private schools, with average annual fees of £20,500 for day pupils and £35k for boarders, have charitable status and tax breaks? God no. They're a business.

'My kids schools share facilities with local schools; '

I call bullshit. renting out your 3G doesn't count. nor does inviting the kids in once a term for a 'classics' workshop now and again. FFS.

The only thing that matters is meeting the legal requirements, and they do.

‘Closing the loophole’, which isn’t in fact a loophole (as private schools are not a charity established to relieve poverty) may sound simple, but you’re arguing against established legal precedent and the actual definition of charity as it is legally understood. Simple that is not, and a government attempting it would have to consider if it is in fact worth the fight (and the unintended consequences).

I’m entirely unconvinced that in incoming Labour government will be inclined to do so, as outside of populist statements designed to appeal to the base, there seems to be little appetite for it. That of course doesn’t mean they won’t, but when you’ve scaled back from ‘we will do x!’ to ‘if need be we have the option to do x’, it doesn’t look so hopeful for those supportive of such a policy.

You are interchanging the words bursaries and scholarships and proving you do not have a clue what you are talking about in the process.

Bursaries are specifically targeted at low income families. FACT. They are means tested - to be eligible, they need to evidence all their income, assets and expenditure. If a family has investment in property (and this includes having paid off mortgage on current residence), they are expected to release this to pay fees before being eligible for bursary. If they have just one working parent, the other is expected to work. Likewise, cars should not be extravagant and nor should their lifestyle. Any evidence of extravagance and it is withdrawn. Schools are extremely clear that they do not provide bursaries for lifestyle choices.

Scholarships are awarded for excellence be that academic, musical, sporting or other. The amount is usually token eg 10% fee discount on £25k pa fees so parents would still need a decent amount of wealth to access this. The child holding the award is expected to demonstrate their use of it eg playing in school orchestra for music scholar, sports matches for sports scholar. It is more about the prestige than fee saving.

The majority of children at any given private school are not on bursary so it stands to reason that they have parents and families in the top % earnings and wealth. But the few that are, genuinely do not come from high wealth backgrounds