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

https://www.stpaulsschool.org.uk/admissions/bursaries-assistance-with-fees/bursaries-faqs/#:~:text=Families%20with%20a%20gross%20household,be%20eligible%20for%20a%20bursary.
Families with a gross household income of up £126,000 pa or less and net assets up to £1.4m may be eligible for a bursary. From 2023/24, those with gross household incomes below £68,000 pa may be eligible for an award of up to 100% of fees, subject to net assets. An allowance of £15,000 per child will be made against assessable income for any dependent children in the family other than the applicant. These examples are indicative only and the school cannot guarantee that they will apply to particular parents.

https://www.cityoflondonschool.org.uk/apply/bursary

• A family on a joint net income of less than £45,000 per annum, with limited assets, would be eligible to be considered for a full bursary equivalent to 100% of fees.
• Families with a net household income of £50,000 per annum, with limited assets may be eligible to receive a bursary up to 75% of fees.
• Families with a net household income of £70,000 per annum, with limited assets may be eligible to receive a bursary up to 25% of fees.

https://www.dulwich.org.uk/admissions/bursaries-free-and-subsidised-places
Are we eligible for a free or subsidised place?

The criteria listed below provide a guide of the circumstances in which a household might be eligible for a bursary award:

A combined gross income of less than £100,000
Both parents are working (or actively seeking employment)
Ownership of only one residential property with a mortgage or living in rented accommodation
Savings and/or discretionary spending of less than £10,000
No frequent and/or expensive holidays, new or luxury cars or investment in significant home improvements

Those are the first three I found on Google, most people would consider those eligibility criteria to cover middle class parents. 2 of the 3 cover higher rate taxpayers.

Stop pretending these schools are doing some kind of social good. It's just bollocks.

If starmer has figured out the details of his policy he needs to tell us. That will help him, as it will forestall attacks on the policy’s credibility. And it will help the sector, who will be able to understand who is and isn’t in scope. I would hope that neither he nor you would want to be causing worry to people operating charitable SEN schools, for example.
i am not sure why starmer’s status as a lawyer is relevant - he never practiced in this area and nothing in his professional experience equips him to deal with the complexities we have discussed here. The reason why starmer cannot explain what he will do is because he doesn’t know.

Traditional definition of charity in English law included things like relief of the poor, education (so education per se - not education of the poor etc
I think it was Labour in about 2010 or before that brought in a new "pubilc benefit" requirement such that private schools if they were very rich had to do a lot and if they were very poor at least had to let people use part of the grounds and that kind of things and opera houses had to help those who were really poor not just provide opera to the rich. It was a massive change at the time.

The Government summary says

The 13 descriptions of purposes
The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:

• (a) the prevention or relief of poverty
• (b)the advancement of education
• (c) the advancement of religion
• (d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives
• (e) the advancement of citizenship or community development
• (f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
• (g) the advancement of amateur sport
• (h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
• (i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
• (j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
• (k) the advancement of animal welfare
• (l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
• (m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales"

So it is any of those PLUS public benefit.

Because then their "charity" would actually be targeted at the children who would most benefit from the education/social mobility a private school could give them.

Children who's parents are top rate tax payers with 1.4m in assets don't need bursaries. Its ridiculous. The school clearly want to benefit from charitable status while not admitting any of the "wrong" type

I’m genuinely confused by this. Why would someone who has claimed bursaries are not means tested post abundant evidence that they are? Is it April 1st? What’s going on??
The eligibility is “up to” a certain level. It’s not debarring anyone at any level below that from applying. The levels there reflect the fact that the fees of these institutions are not affordable for those on incomes below a certain level. For the love of god, what on earth is wrong with that?

st Paul’s has clearly done the work to understand how wide they need to draw the net of eligibility to ensure all those who can’t afford them are eligible. I am sorry that this affords people like you scope for conspiracism but it seems to me to be a sound policy.
i am looking forward to you and others retracting the statement that bursaries are not means tested.

St Paul's costs almost £30,000 a year if the fees are similar to the girls' school. Given house prices in London and the likely associated mortgage or even rents within a reasonable radius, the salaries quoted don't seem like bonkers figures. And again, if it's anything like the girls' school, they won't be giving 1% of children a bursary though that may be the figure for all schools. St Paul's Girls' has around 12% of children on bursaries and a lot of them are substantial. The boys' school has a much larger foundation than the girls' school so I would be astonished if they genuinely have only 1% of children on bursaries.

The boys' school has indicated in the past that they would like to move to needs blind admission and the girls' school is currently doing a huge fundraising drive to increase the percentage of children on bursaries to 20%. I have also been at a talk at the girls' school where they explicitly stated that they have never yet had to turn away any girl who has passed the exams sufficiently well for lack of funds.

Just thought the actual facts may be helpful here.

I never said the bursaries weren't means tested. And the 1.2% figure is from the good schools guide, not made up by me.
I think it is ridiculous that private schools get tax breaks for being "charities" because they give bursaries to middle class children.
I think arguing thar because St Paul's costs 30,000 a year, its totally reasonable thar parents who are top rate tax payers get support is showing how totally out of touch you are with most peoples lives and incomes.
I think its disgusting thar the state education sector, which educates 93% of children, is underfunded and failing and you are arguing against a policy to raise money for the treasury by removing a perk that is benefitting the rich.

“Then posters like you claim its "a serious allegation" to imply these schools aren't charities. Legally they are. But to the lay person in the street, they definitely are not.”

Well yes, they need to meet the legal definition, not the definition of Joe and Jane average.

You seem to be struggling to understand that your definition of ‘charity’ is not the one they need to adhere to.

Again, relevant quotes from the provided links:

Similarly, the word “poor” in this context does not mean destitute. In the discourse of charity law, a poor person is 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.

191. The status of an existing registered charity and the duties of the trustees have not been changed by the 2006 Act. As to status, either it was entitled to be registered before the 2006 Act or it was not. If it was, its purposes must have been for the public benefit as that term was then understood and, since we are dealing with schools where there is no presumption made under the pre-2006 Act law for the reasons we have given, it thus fulfils the public benefit test under the 2006 Act. Accordingly, whether such a school is a charity within the meaning of the 2006 Act does not now turn on the way in which it operates any more than it did before. Its status as a charity depends on what it was established to do not on what it does.

You can quote it again. My point was not the law. It was the fact that the schools are exploiting the law to get the financial perks.

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, just because something is technically legal doesn't mean its ethically right.

I hope Starmer does change the law on this.

The point is the law though. They’re not ‘exploiting’ it, they’re obeying it. It isn’t ‘technically legal’ - it is legal. You may not like the law, but you don’t need to. Your disapproval doesn’t negate it.

We’ll see what Starmer does if he wins the election, but either way I wouldn’t be inclined to get your hopes up.

As someone who works in a private school which I genuinely believe is trying very hard to meet the spirit as well as the letter of the law (could provide more examples), I do tend to agree that those schools which appear to be gaming the system are not helpful to making a case for the sector's existence.

Hmm. The law is a construct created by politicians. They can and will change it if enough of the public "don't like it". Which is exactly what Starner is suggesting.

Genuinely failing to understand the logic here. First it's that people who send their children private are better parents because they scrimp and save, anyone could do it. Then it's that middle class children deserve bursaries because the schools are unaffordable.

And the schools are charities and deserve the financial support. And they help disadvantaged children, who can have rich parents. Totally baffled.

I think this poster is highlighting the ethics of this practice, most people would associate the word 'charity' with the idea of helping someone in need, it is stretching credulity to argue that top rate taxpayers are those in need! Then again, many posters on here seemingly don't give a shit about ethics!

I’m referring to the legal definition of charity, and that ‘those in need’ doesn’t need to apply to those in poverty.

“In the discourse of charity law, a poor person is 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”

You don’t like this, clearly. You don’t need to 🤷🏻‍♀️

You also said that "I don't understand how a school paying fees for less than 2% of students can be considered "a charity"." which I tend to agree with on the whole. So I was pointing out that at least one of the schools you have referenced absolutely isn't giving bursaries to only 1% of students. I wasn't insinuating that you had made it up.

I don't really understand why you think middle class children should be excluded. If you can't afford £30,000 a year, you can't afford it whether your income is £50,000 or £20,000 or even £70,000 or £100,000, especially given the high costs of living in an area that means a child is able to actually travel there and take part in eg after school activities without it being a huge burden. The bursary process is intrusive and detailed and absolutely does look at where people's money is going. If it is going on a family home, yes, those people who own a house are more advantaged than many but these schools aren't expecting people who may have worked hard to be able to buy a house to give that up. Rents are pretty crazy for normal non-home-owners who live nearby too. The bursary is to fund education and to ensure that people are still able to have a reasonable family life. The bursary will probably leave these families in broadly the same position as they would have been without the costs of the school.

In addition, while some of these children are middle class I know from my experience at the girls' school that many are not. The ones who are able to pass the extremely stringent exams are all equally deserving of a place at the school regardless of income or class background and that is also the attitude the school takes. All they look at is affordability. They are in no way excluding the children of the less fortunate/well off from applying for bursaries and they absolutely take family background into account eg in terms of the school the child has previously attended etc. There is one single list operated for 'who has passed the exam' and bursaries are awarded to children on that list as necessary to enable their families to be able to send them there without giving up a normal family life.

I also think it's disgusting that the state system which educates most children is underfunded and failing but I don't agree that it's as a result of private schools offering bursaries. And I don't really care that much whether Labour puts VAT on school fees or not and haven't in fact mentioned it on this thread or any other as far as I can remember, mainly because I don't think that even if they do take that step it will deliver the benefits that people seem to think it will (though I would very much like to see a Labour government).

Hi there

this specific area of the tax legislation is my daily job. I have been doing this job for more years than I care to remember. some points:

Yes private schools have been using the charitable exemption. It’s not seen as an ‘exploiting a loophole’ by HMRC. It is accepted practice and mainstream private schools making use of this exemption are not challenged as long as the school in some small way makes some of its facilities open to the public or offer bursaries / scholarships.

Many see this as unfair and think VAT should be added to school fees. This is incredibly simple for the treasury to do. Legislation can be changed at the stroke of a pen following brexit.

This change would NOT mean that universities fees would have VAT added. The VAT act is very much more specific than that.

there has been little in the way of reliable research on whether this policy of adding VAT to school fees would result in a gain for the exchequer but it is thought more likely that the exchequer would gain from it rather than lose, I.e. that the government would take more in VAT than it would lose in educating the kids that drop out of private schooling.

private schools would not be able to recover a significant amount of VAT due to charging VAT on school fees as they do not incur a significant amount of VAT on their expenses. Their main expense being staff costs which is obviously VAT free.

Thanks sunny. What are the financial benefits to the school of being a charity rather than a business?

I also think it's disgusting that the state system which educates most children is underfunded and failing but I don't agree that it's as a result of private schools offering bursaries
I didn't say it was a result of bursaries. Labour say their policy will put £1.5bn into the exchequer. This could be used to fund state schools who desperately need it. Several posters on here are dead set against that, mainly I think because their school fees will go up. I find the "I'm OK jack" attitude disgusting

I don't mind if they put VAT on school fees personally. But I'm not convinced it will deliver as much money as that. Plus I actually think £1.5bn is a drop in the ocean given what has been happening in and to state schools in recent years.

Not to worry, I found an informative Web page: https://hlca.co.uk/resources/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-being-a-charity/

• Advantages of being a charity
• Charities do not generally have to pay income/corporation tax (in the case of some types of income), capital gains tax, or stamp duty, and gifts to charities are usually free of inheritance tax.
• A charity pays no more than 20% of normal business rates on the buildings which they use and occupy to further their charitable purposes – in many cases the local authority will award, upon application, the additional 20% as a further relief, giving 100% rates relief; As part of this, we are seeing more and more landlords with surplus property renting to charities at peppercorn rents, to obtain rates relief.
• A charity can get special VAT treatment in some circumstances. Many think charities are exempt from VAT, but this is not the case.
• Charities are often able to raise funds from the public, grant-making trusts and local government more easily than non-charitable bodies.
• Charities can reclaim gift aid on many of the donations received from private individuals.

That's a lot of money that these schools are not paying to the exchequer, in exchange for providing a bursaries to middle class children

I actually had no idea private schools were doing this until I started this thread, so I've learnt something. And am even less impressed with those who educate privately than I was before for propping up this system

You weren’t supposed to do that, you know. You were supposed to leave your children in the state schools to provide local colour for the children of people like the OP.😂
😂
Brilliant. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has picked up on the implications throughout the thread that children of families who have no option of private education are experience fodder for the "we could afford private but we believe other people's children will give an experience to our children" types. It's like the educational version of Benefits Street, now ok, Jemma we have lots of money but when you go to school we want you to really take notice of how many children don't have lots of money. Sitting in a classroom that might contain a child from a poor background is an essential experience for you but I'm sure in reality you'll end up socialising with fairly similar people to yourself "

We have no chance of paying for private school like many middle class families but I still agree with the OP. So you don't think children form genuine friendships across socio-economic groups within schools without their parents' engineering it? I'll have to tell my DS and DD that their friendships are not genuine and that has been my Master plan all along! Talk about patronising to people that you obviously think are plebs and have nothing to offer children from middle class backgrounds. Quite apart from anything, understanding different backgrounds and working cooperatively with people who have different perspectives due to that socio -economic diversity, is definitely not a skill you can acquire where the socioeconomic status is all the same I.e wealthy!

What's your ideal than more social segregation where we can only mix with people in our designated social class- how lovely.

What about, if your child is clever and easily bored by the slow grind of state education while the dullards who arrive at school in nappies at 5 try to keep up, which is the reality for lots of very bright children, then (as examples) St Pauls or Godolphin & Latymer might consider your child? The independent sector is always searching for talent. And that is not an option for the state sector.

Yes, because if you cared about your child, you wouldn't let them hang out with the riff-raff.