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.

[Tanith]

YABU

I wonder if you've actually looked into Eton's charitable status, or if you're just talking from prejudice? I suspect it's the latter.

Eton is one of the private schools that's more than able to demonstrate their charitable status. They do considerably more than offer a few subsidized places and the bursaries they offer are exceptionally generous.

If any school deserves to keep its charitable status, it's Eton.

And hatwoman, what do you mean when you claim that private school parents are subsidised by you? Surely it's the case, with free state education paid for by all tax payers, that THEY are subsidisng YOU!

[wasabipeas]

CouldYouWouldYou - it is interesting that you justify national trust tax breaks because "generally the garden and landscapes they maintain are wonderful places to visit and simply wouldn't exist otherwise"...

What about the theatres and swimming pools and sports facilities maintained by private schools which wouldn't exist otherwise and are lovely for state schools and the public to use?

[MIFLAW]

Seem to be a lot of red herrings for so early in the thread.

If the "tax break" is all about VAT, then surely we should campaign for school fees and books to be zero-rated items (if they aren't already)? The school as such would then not need any special treatment.

And, yes, the definition of charities includes institutions of an educational nature. But I think the issue here is not whether that is true but that a lot of us think that should not cover private education where a state-provided alternative exists. Most of us, I would argue, thaink that charity is about benefitting the genuinely needy rather than endorsing the lifestyle choices of the comfortably off.

[zanz1bar]

miflaw exactly

[AppleandMosesMummy]

Ah the deserving and undeserving poor debate, this could take quite a turn for the worse

[MIFLAW]

Incidentally, I also think "for religion" should be struck from that list and that faith schools should not receive state money in any guise - but that is perhaps another (maybe two other?) separate argument(s).

[scienceteacher]

But the Charities Commission does require charities to be accessible, as well as meeting their primary purpose.

In the case of a school, the primary purpose is advancement of education - check, they do that one.

The other requirement is for some of their benefits to be widely available. That is where bursaries, community service, free rental on facilities, providing masterclasses etc come into it.

[MIFLAW]

Apple

I have no idea what you are talking about.

It is not a debate about the deserving and undeserving poor.

It is a debate about the poor and not poor.

[MIFLAW]

I'm not saying they don't, science teacher. They clearly meet all the requirements of being a charity or else they would not have charitable status.

I'm saying I think that that alone is a piss-poor definition of a charity and one out of kilter with modern thinking.

[hatwoman]

blimey I'm not going to get into an argument about other people's tax subsidising "my" tax credits, child benefit, maternity services, nursery places, schools, elderly care or single parents not to work. everybody's tax pays for these things (including mine funnily enough). and there's plenty of analysis that a disprortionate burden of taxation is placed on the less well off. paying a lot of tax is not the eclusive domain of those who earn a lot of money (abolition of the 10p rate?). but all that's a separate issue.

the reference to subsidies was in part a reference to the ability of charities to claim back tax on donations. but mainly it was a reference to the bigger picture - I was using "my" tax as shorthand for everyone's tax, inc vat. (ie I didn't mean hatwoman's income tax) If cutting charitable status is going to force schools to up their fees to an extent that worries them then it's clear that charitable status has a financial advantage. doesn't that, ulimately, comes from govt? (if not forgive my mistake, but do please explain it) And if it comes from govt then, to me, that, is what I would loosely call my tax. I guess I just see all govt spending in this way.

[ABetaDad]

Tell you what if the state handed back to me the money it saved by me paying for my kids education I would be happy the pay the VAT on the school fees. I would be quids in.

This is going to backfire big style and the Tories will now even more likley introduce eductation vouchers in response and then private school will be even more exclusive.

[bathtime]

I really think this one needs to be looked at again.

To call private schools charities really doesn't make any sense at all. By their very nature they are elite, they are about giving the children of "relatively" wealthy parents a head start in life, it's buying a form of advantage. Logically, that disadvantages children whose parents can't "buy" that advantage. So, giving these institutions charitable status seems very wrong.

Many, many children would have little chance of going private based on their parent's ability to pay full fees or because the family income is too high for burseries.

BetaDad - you're wrong! If private schools closed they could easily be absorbed into the state sector, making them available to a wider section of the population. This is alreadIn Bristol when 2 private schools closed they became Academies within the state sector - it's a no brainer, benefits everyone!

[KingRolo]

AppleandMosesMummy - Yes, some areas still have the 11+ but the majority don't. In lots of places, particularly in medium and smaller sized towns, children simply go to the local comprehensive and that's that.

No apostrophe in areas btw.

[scienceteacher]

Modern thinking is not a good argument. Look at the state of our society because of modern thinking.

I think we should give far more kudos to the ideology that pupils should have access to good education, free from disruption, bad behaviour and government ideology.

That's what most of us are paying for.

Rather than slam private schools, put your energies to fixing state schools. Make state schools more attractive and the vast majority of us who are currently paying will happily embrace them.

Meanwhile, cancelling charitible status (ie removing education from the list of acceptable charitible purposes), does nothing for the balance books. As I said, the only reason I work is for my children to be privately education, and the VAT savings on their fees are less than the income tax I pay.

As I said before, drop the ideology and do the math.

[hatwoman]

this thread is interesting...but I have to work!!! so apologies to anyone who directly challenges me...I have to go and earn some money, to pay my taxes, while my children are at school.

If I come back tell me off.

[MIFLAW]

ABetaDad

That would imply that, if ever you found yourself in dire straits, you would choose to send your children out to work. I mean, you wouldn't have the nerve to ask for free education at that point, would you? Not after claiming back all your generous donations to the State.

Why shouldn't private school be exclusive? That's why it's private. The more vocal, confident, educated parents like yourself in state education, the greater the pressure on the state to provide a fit for purpose service, and the greater the benefit to all.

France, for example, has a much more egalitarian and universal system than we do, and I would modestly submit that it shits on ours from a height.

[Metella]

Lots of private schools give large bursaries so they are not for the elite.

[AppleandMosesMummy]

The local state funded academy, which also happens to be in an 11+ area, has an entrance exam and a uniform that will set you back over £500 so that worked a treat didn't it.

The fact is I don't agree with a lot of things my actual tax pays for, wars, tax credits, child benefit, pension credits for those who decided not to save yadda yadda yadda however I don't get a choice so don't get worked up about it.
There didn't used to be VAT on any books or newspapers, which government introduced that ?

[MIFLAW]

"Modern thinking is not a good argument. Look at the state of our society because of modern thinking."

you're right - I say let's get the children of the poor back in the mines, mills and brick-fields at the age of 10 so we can all return to a happier, more peaceful time.

[scienceteacher]

What a useful contribution to the debate, miflaw.

Modern thinking has led to a breakdown in society, especially with regards to family life.

This in turn has lead to endemic bad behaviour in schools, which is why those that can do their utmost to turn away from these schools.

[KingRolo]

You don't agree with pension credits for people 'who decided not to save'?

Saving is not an option for many people.

Love the way you put things you don't agree with like war (OK, fine) in the same breath as pensions and child benefit.

[KingRolo]

Miflaw - you typed that for me .

[scienceteacher]

We can all cherry pick, kingrolo.

[AppleandMosesMummy]

I know so many people who use their child benefit to pay for their caravan site fees and shoes/handbags that tbh I do think they are wrongly allocated, pension credits get given to people who own houses bigger than the school I work in because people are asset rich and cash poor.
If people are making sweeping statements I'm happy to join in.

[splodge2001]

YANBU - It's absolute tosh.....

the number of bursaries provided by these schools are a tiny fraction of their overall turnover - that's why they are now being refused charitable status.

In effect the charitable status has been funding reduced fees for rich people sending their kids to private schools. This is clearly nonsensical. It would not be a bad thing either if fee rises ended up in more kids from affluent families sending kids to state schools - it would make those schools better.

And it's not like they've lost the status forever. All they need to do to get the status back is prove they are providing help to the public - A totally reasonable request. A handful of bursaries does not a charity make, in the same way that my purchase of an incomplete set of 1987 encylopedias at DS's school fair doesn't give me charitable status, though by buying useless junk I think I am being quite charitable