to think private schools having charitable status is taking the piss

[zanz1bar]

Most private schools have their charitable status as an accident of history. Does a school like Eton really deserve the same financial status as the NSPCC.

Can it really be justified by a few subsidized places.

mellifluous, on what evidence do you base your strange assertion that pastoral care does not exist in state schools?

blimey, have just realised, courtesy of this thread, that I have been confusing unquietdad and abetadad. I was starting to wonder if he had schizophrenia. so which one of you is the one with connections to sheffield/.

and on the substance - pastoral care is very much dependent on the school. dds' 60 a year outer london state school - not great. rural village school true to cliche - very impressed.

personally i think that it is ridiculous that they have charitable status. they are businesses. i have no fence to sit on. dd1 and DD2 are state school- however sending dd2 private for 2 years to address dyslexia. It was totally apparent to me that we were buying a solution and basically ten grand a year buys you class sizes of 7 and 121 tuition.

so no, i do not think that they should have charitable status- they are providing a service for those that can afford it. How you incentivise them to give free places to a handful of children is irrelevant- basically tax payers are subsidising (through the lost tax revenue) the education of already privileged children. Maybe some of this could be used to improve facilities to enable every child to reach their potential.

My basis is my husband who attended State school then private school. He said there was no pastoral care in State school. I experienced the same thing at my State school. I won't bore you with the details but it was bad.

At private school he had regular meetings with his housemaster, he was not a teacher who taught you he was responsible for your pastoral care and wellbeing. Your State form teacher just took the register.

As I said, I have decided that State is best for my child. So I am pro-State - but not anti Private either.

hatwoman - I am the southern expat in S.Yorks.

mellifluous - well, my basis for saying you are mistaken is two children in State school and a DW who works in one

But you must think it isn't the case now, mellifluouscauli, or you wouldn't be going for the state option yourself....?

By UnquietDad on Tue 14-Jul-09 19:14:41
In my experience the local private schools have as little to do with "the community" as they possibly can - which is what the parents I know who use them seem to want. If they wanted a "community" school they'd have chosen a state one.

Actually this is not the case locally at all. DD's school has a lot to do with the local community. It works very closely with the Children's Hospital and Weston Park hospital. It has links with various projects throughout the city; these incude both monetary and non monetary links. They have links with various schools for joint events also. Certainly DD's school has far more to do with the local community than the school I work at does.

Unquiet - I don't mean a disrespect for teachers and employees in the State system. I think on the whole they do an excellent job, often in difficult circumstances.

But my son has a best friend who really looks a little bit like him. I am always being given the other boy's (named) jumpers and such like by the teaching staff. Sometimes I learn of the other boy's misdemeanors.

All I was saying was if I was an international emissary working for the UN, jetting from conference to conference, I don't think I could feel entirely confident that my son's every emotional need was being met in my absence :-)

Is private school a bit like private transport? A perfectly good subsidised state provision exists and those who have the nouse to read the timtables and get on with using it can go ANYWHERE! Those who can afford a car and buy one are availing themselves of a luxury version of the same travel. How can that be a charity? (though I agree the provision of a high level of scholarships and means tested busaries SHOULD be admissable as public benefit).

I quite like your analogy, Blu, although I'm sure someone will pick it to pieces. Let's be honest, any analogy can be knocked down. (Far more people have "private transport" than use private school, for one thing!)

Yes that analogy works for me

No-one ever took a bus to the top of Everest though

Swedes made the cat's protection league point. There are charities and charities of course.

Public benefit must be contained in the purposes

Where the purposes of an organisation are ambiguous or unclear, the court may be able to determine its true purposes by reference to its activities
But there is no legal basis for the notion that an institution whose purposes are charitable (and so for the public benefit) can lose such charitable status merely because of the manner in which it is run by the directors or trustees
Under the law (both before and after the Charities Act 2006) public benefit is contained in an organisation?s purposes, not in its activities

The purposes of a charity for the advancement of education are necessarily for the public benefit
This is a cut and paste from a presentation made by Peter Luxton who is a charity law specialist and professor at Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University

"A charity does not have to show that it is providing public benefit in the way in which it carries out its activities

A charity merely has to show that it is carrying out its purposes

A charity asked to state how it has been satisfying public benefit in carrying out its purposes could therefore respond that it has been satisfying public benefit in that its purposes are charitable for the public benefit, and that it has been carrying out its purposes in the following ways (and so listing its activities)"

I know it doesn't really answer the OP's question. Because the law is often an ass. But this is a legal specialist's intepretation of the law as it stands. I doubt we will ever see a school stripped of its charity status so that we can have a proper test case. It's all New Labour puff.

ANd there are some ridiculous charities. I wouldn't want to give my money to a lot of them but I don't resent them receiving money from the state just because they are minority interest charities.

UQD

I meant, if you choose to opt out of the system, then don't carp about the money you leave behind in that system.

Others - of course A levels are harder than the bac. But are they an unmoving "gold standard"? No, they are not. Difficulty and rigour are not the same thing at all.

I'm baffled by the whole thing. I'm not quite sure why schools have charitable status except that they clearly fulfill the criterion of education (see list early on thread). Providing more choice in education seems to me to be as valid as some of the other categories.

I've looked at the report for one of the schools which didn't pass the test. Its not in Hampstead, its in Preston. It doesn't have vast tracts of land or buildings. It doesn't have any endowments. All it has is the income from fees from the current parents. The reason it failed seems to be because the fees are 'high' and therefore exclude people in poverty. But the report also notes that the policy of the school is to keep the fees as low as possible so that it is more affordable. So theres a catch 22 - the only way this school could pay for bursaries is to raise fees ...which might exclude some of the existing pupils...

I also don't understand how bursaries are supposed to work in the context of a primary school. For secondary, its usually based on ability (academic, sporting, music etc). But that can hardly apply to 4 year olds. How would such places be filled?

Actually in this particular instance there might be a way - children excluded from their nearest state school by reason of their parents' religion might be a good criterion. Preston is lousy with CofE and RC churches; this school is a haven for muslim and hindu children (fortunate enough to have sufficiently affluent parents to opt out of the discriminatory state system). And the odd atheist too, no doubt.

"The benefits to society would be far greater if all children went to state schools, "

I haven't had to make the decision yet, but believe me, I will be thinking about the benefit to my child and his future, not that of society when I decide where to educate my child. Anybody who says otherwise is lying. Otherwise, why would anyone fight to get a place in any one school over another?

Personally, yes I do think private schools should retain charity status. The minimal amount of VAT not given to the government from school fees is thoroughly offset by the saving for the state system of the child not being there.

no they are not lying soapsy. perhaps some are but not all. It's incredibly presumptious of you, and actually quite offensive, to think you can read other people's minds and that they work like yours does.

we are a diverse set of beings us humans you know.

I do wonder if private schools did lose their charitable status if we would really end up subsidising them less.

I wonder if the "donations" would just become "investments", the schools would never make a profit (as they would be taxed on this) and the "investment losses" could then be written off the donor's (no doubt substantial) capital gains for the year.

Or maybe the schools would just headquarter in Switerland to avoid corporation tax altogether.

I agree the debate is devisive, intent on fanning the flames of the class divide for little gain.

oops..divisive I meant..they would have beaten that out of me at private school..

"The benefits to society would be far greater if all children went to state schools, "

I've lost track of who said that, but I'm curious to know if there is any proof that this statement is true. I mean, it would be nice if that was true, but I suspect it isn't.

of all the half-arsed arguments wheeled out to justify charitable status, the most galling imo is that those who pay fees to send their children to private schools are somehow "subsidising" those who send their children to state schools.
even to make such an argument underlines a horrible "us" and "them" attitude. Grow up, we all end up paying for things e don't use, or paying more for things used more by others. In a civilised society, this is called COMMUNITY. I am glad I don't have the kind of perspective that thinks like that. State schools are educating a whole generation, not just YOUR CHILDREN. Sheesh.

hello HC

[kowtow]

hey babe
have just come on to be ANNOYED about the charitable status of private schools
grrrrrrr
now going to bed
xx

So you'd honestly put your perception of the needs of society over the needs of your individual child?

It is perfectly normal human behaviour to do what 'you' believe to be best for your child, regardless of how diverse we might all be. If the needs of your child happen to coincide with your own set of values, fantastic, and 'you'(generic you, rather than you personally) can do your bit for societal good, but it doesn't always work out that way. People will (generally) choose to do what is best for them personally rather than for the common good.

And I'm sorry if you find it offensive, as that is not my intention. I just subscribe to a selfish gene viewpoint. We are all pre-programmed to be somewhat less than truly altruistic, however hard we might try to be, or want to be.