To not sign friends petition about school fees ?

[Whereforartthoudave]

Or more to the point tell her why I’m not?

friend grp - 3 families out of 9 send their kids to private school. One dad has decided to start a petition re Private schools losing their charity status - as in it’s not fair if they do. His DW has sent it round this morning.

Stupidly rather than just ignore it - when she said will you sign, I said, sorry no - Private schools are businesses not charities so I agree with the proposed change.

Now she wants to know WHY exactly.

YANBU - ignore it and don’t get into a bun fight over private versus state school. I’m not judging their choices but I don’t think the schools should have tax breaks.

YABU - tell her why. The why being I don’t agree with private schools at all, but her money her choice. And think it’s laughable that they have charity status when the majority ( and this is backed up by actual stats) do virtually nothing to earn it.

Many smaller private schools also have facilities that are used by the surrounding state schools - pools, stages, sports facilities etc. - if they lose their charitable status then why would they continue to offer this to the local state school?

wow. You really told on yourself there!

(incidentally, I went to a leading independent school on a scholarship for 5 years. In those 5 years,the number of times that local state schools used our amazing facilities was... zero.)

This

This is perfect

@fearfuloffluff I have seen both examples near to me when local private schools have closed. Some will of course enter the state sector. Once they are businesses though, they can do what they want with their assets.

@BlurredEdges I am sure they will donate to their new school, just like they do at their current private school who also have PTAs etc. You have a very sad picture of private school parents. I've met alot of private school pupils and parents through my work and I can assure you most of them are lovely kind people, just like at state school.

@Hooplahooping I couldn't agree more. Reform of the definition of charitable status would be my preferred way of dealing with the issue. This would mean those making vast amounts of money would have to give more to the local community than the school just breaking even.

I'm not really sure what 'told on myself' means...

To be clear - my 3 children go to state school (actually 3 different state schools, due to differing needs) All three state schools benefit from the facilities that belong to the local private schools, hence my concern.

It's a shame that the leading independent school that you attended didn't share the amazing facilities that you enjoyed.

I agree you've already explained.

I would say I've seen the arguments for and against this change and my view is that I agree with it, so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

You obviously don’t have to send it around or sign it, but I’m incredibly worried about the prospect of VAT on school fees. And my children are in state school and always will be, barring a lottery win.

But we live in an area where a large proportion - much higher than average - of kids are privately educated, and even so, the state schools are full to bursting. It’ll be a disaster, but not for the kids who are currently in private school - their parents will buy nice houses near the good state schools. It’s the rest of them who’ll get places at failing schools two towns away.

'Told on yourself' means 'revealed what you really think'.

Regardless of which school your children attend, what I meant was - it shows that you don't believe the private school shares the facilities because they actually want to share their wealth and privilege with those less fortunate, but only because they have to do it as a condition of the great financial benefit they themselves receive.

It's not really 'charitable' if someone only do it because it benefits them, is it?

You've already told her why. It's ill mannered of her to continue to push it. I don't think it merits further discussion.

Perhaps all those parents no longer paying thousands in fees could donate some money that they save to the state schools.

They could, or they could use it to pay the SDLT when they buy nice houses near the best state schools. Which is what they’ll do.

@FanFckingTastic P.S. My own children also go to two different state schools (because some are primary and some secondary) and none of the many private schools around here has ever shared any of their facilities with them in the 10+ years that they have been going to school.

So I've seen the 'sharing' (or rather the lack of it) from both sides.

There is plenty of support and sharing between different state schools, but none of my children have ever had the slightest benefit from any of the private schools in the area. And they could desperately do with them - they get a few weeks of swimming at the (shit) local council pool in year 5, they have to use the sports field at another local state primary school, and the secondary school also has to pay to use council facilities.

The idea that most private schools are generously sharing their facilities with the less privileged is a total myth. And of course it is - because their paying customers (the parents) are paying precisely because they want their children to have access to better facilities than others.

If they really 'shared the wealth', the parents would stop paying, and then they'd be fucked.

You're right. Parents who pay to get their children an unfair advantage in life are not going to do anything that might lessen their advantage over others.

Very awkward now that you've said no. I think you kind of have to back it up now.

I'd message her outside of the group and just say something vague "I see charities as charitable causes to vulnerable people in need. Whereas the vast majority of people who use private schools are economically much better off than the average person. So personally I don't see them as charities". And just leave it there.

People's children, and by extension their education, are very emotive subjects which people will definitely fall out with friends over. If you value the friendship, I'd just be as passive as possible and move on. You clearly both have different views and neither likely to change.

(But I'm with you - they're not charities in the slightest, and don't the economic elite get enough tax loopholes?!)

Funding for schools is per pupil so more pupils means more money not less in the state sector. Also more parents jostling for state school improvement, including MPs and their friends can only be a good thing.

They could, or they could use it to pay the SDLT when they buy nice houses near the best state schools. Which is what they’ll do.

Yes, this could also impact on house prices near the best state schools - if parents are no longer paying the fees, but they still have plenty more than the average person with which to buy a house.

If the best state schools become oversubscribed, it will be the ex-private kids whose parents can afford to live in the reduced catchment area, with the ordinary kids pushed out of being able to live there.

Even if they can no longer afford separate private schools, parents with a lot more money, who have already shown their desire to use it to give their kids an educational head start, are not going to settle for anything less than the best that they can still afford - with the result being that a lot of ordinary kids just have to move down a level as well.

@BlurredEdges it's a shame that your kids have had a different experience to mine. I can only talk from my experience, and you yours. My concerns still stand - that state school kids, including my own, will be adversely affected by this.

Private schools aren't charities. It is a nonsense to claim that they are. In the end, whatever the fall out is, they shouldn't be allowed to benefit from claiming charitable status.

I think the usual arrangement is that the school uses the facilities in the school day, and for after school activities, and then hires it out for the holidays and evenings?

A friend is hiring the local private school's theatre for her am dram group, for instance, and I remember going to Saturday morning swimming classes held in a local private school's swimming pool ~25 years ago.

It's not surprising that the school is making use of their facilities for their pupils in school hours.

This.
(state-educated plus state educated kids, but before you get too judgmental about it, consider if your school would cope if there were eg 5 extra kids in every class. )

I'm saying that there are plenty of private schools in my area and in 10+ years of my children attending multiple state schools, they have never once had the opportunity to use any of the facilities at any of those schools, in or out of school hours (nor to benefit from the existence of the private schools in any other way).

OP, I don't have a petition issue to navigate but I am conscious that this is going to come up most likely as I have family whose children go to private school, and they in turn have lots of friends at private school. Obviously.

My thinking on this is not entirely formed because one of my issues is that many of the arguments on this thread, both pro and against, make sense to me and I agree with. If I had to boil down my thinking, it probably comes down to: I think that private schools being seen as charities and gaining charitable status and all the financial benefits of that is ridiculous but no, I don't think a VAT-rate tax of 20% should be levied - something like 5-10% seems more appropriate to me.

However, I do not want to debate or discuss this in the social circles I'm in so I'm working on a version of the below for when it comes up,
"I completely understand why VAT on private fees is a huge issue for you and I am sympathetic to people this will impact. I'm not a huge fan of charitable status for private schools though and do think a better system should be in place. I don't feel like either party really has the correct answer, which is a pity." Possibly, I might add something like, "Of course, it doesn't affect me so I get to be a little selfish and just ignore the issue <tinkly laugh>"

They would get more money. In fact one of the problems currently facing state schools is the drop off in the birth rate from 2013 onwards, meaning they are losing a lot of funding.

Honestly, it wouldn't make much difference to our local state schools if the local private schools were forced to close. They don't have huge numbers of pupils anyway and the numbers would be dispersed across a significant number of local schools rather than all piling into just one or two. A few extra middle class kids with supportive parents really aren't going to break the state sector.

But I don't think many schools will close anyway. Most will find ways of cutting costs, and a lot of parents will find ways of paying the extra. A few might be forced into state, but I'm really not worried about the impact of that on state schools, it will be negligible.

This is fine as a social stance if you are basically against private schools and feel they should get no government funding but to be clear taking away charitable status will not create any additional income for the government. The number of people who will no longer be able to afford private school due the increase will mean an increase in school costs offsetting any extra VAT paid.
In other countries the amount that is normally spent on state schooling is paid to the private school thus reducing the fees which doesn't happen in the UK.
I don't have kids in private school so no skin in the game.

Is paying for tutoring unethical?

Is paying for extra curricular activities for your kids which some others mightn't be unable to afford unethical?

Is doing extra work with them at home which other parents may not do unethical?

except that for the families who COULD afford to pay the vat, that could fund those additional state school places and could be funnelled back into the state school system?

A lot of the arguments against this tax make sense but I'm not really sure about this one.