On another thread I got pleasantly trounced for daring to infer that a Private school was profit driven

[Twiglett]

and I was corrected

so now I'm left wondering

what is the business model behind a Private school? Are they all the same? Do none of them have shareholders / owners

ie non-profit

"But you COULD look at it another way, those people whose children are in private education, shouldn't be paying the same amount of tax as other people because they aren't using the state system?"

That is their choice. Education is there for all so we all have to help fund it. It is for the good of society, not the good of any one individual.

Another way of looking at it.

I'm really coming far too late to this thread, I feel.

Yes, you are right WMST, those people who choose private primary ed initially do learn more about the system because they are in it.

That's one of the reasons I suggest to people on here that if they aren't sure they can afford to fund private ed from 3-18 or 5-18 and then university, they should think about using spare cash to buy in extras to build on the state education e.g. music lessons, join the local hockey/rugby club, take tennis lessons, etc. All of that builds on the skills of the child.

Today it is easier than ever to find out more about the education options available, including scholarships and bursaries, because of the internet. Almost every independent school will list its fees, entry requirements etc on their website - parents don't even have to summon up the courage to ring and ask for information or worry that the person on the other end of the phone will be secretly laughing about their address and wondering what on earth makes them they'd fit in.

And although you may think it's all about preparation, I've been assured that the staff who do the entry stuff are perfectly capable of 'sniffing out' the genuinely talented pupils. In fact, one local school, so I have heard, interviews every single applicant BEFORE they take the exam and will not necessarily take, say, the Top 100 candidates if there was a problem perceived at interview.

I really do wish more people would not be frightened of taking the step if they are genuinely interested in private ed, even if they don't think they can afford it. If they're not interested, then fair enough, but they should leave those of us who choose it to get on with it and don't criticise our choice of how we spend our money.

Absolutely, Sue, people can spend their money as they wish.

Just the charitable status that gets me.

Pointy Dog, How is someone who is paying tax like everyone else and then paying extra for private schooling while not burdening the state system doing anything other than supporting the state system? I don't mean that to sound antagonistic - I'm really interested?
I do, however, recognize that there are class implications that come into play in England that simply aren't relevant elsewhere.

I think it is a ludicrous point of debate to say you have to be in the state system to support it. It's a bit like saying I must live in a council house to support social housing. Afterall stick a few middle class families into a sink estate and everyone will improve their anti-social behaviour.

How patronising is that

Back to the point about scholarships and bursaries, WMST. We put all the details of these in the prospectus we send out to ALL interested parents. Not just the parents of kids already at private primaries. Any parents can apply for a bursary if they feel they're eligible; any parents can enquire about scholarships. It's not some private school conspiracy - we're not a secret society which you can only join if you know the secret handshake and password!

For DS's independent school, the prospectus and website mentions bursaries and scholarships and we applied for a bursary for him. It wasn't a secret only to be discovered by those at private schools - in fact some of the awards are only available for pupils who come from state schools. The school is keen to recruit pupils of ability who would have got in for free/ partial fees under the old assisted places scheme and for free in the days of direct grant.

sweety, I'm not saying people who do that are not supporting the state system.

I think we have a misunderstanding here.

People pay taxes, fine.
People choose private school fine.

DD's private school actually advertise scholarships and bursaries in their advertisement in the local paper. That is how we found out about it.

DD has a music scholarship (got it in Year 3) and it was topped up with a bursary due to low income.

I don't know a successful private secondary school which is not a charity and where there are shareholders/owners taking profits. A few new chains have sprung up who seem to be buying ailing schools and trying to charge fairly low fees and provides some kind of compromise between state and private whilst also allowing their shareholders to take funds but none of those chains as far as I know has any decent schools in them. One GEMS I think is funded by Arabs and had some trouble at a couple of schools and is the other Cognitas or something which Chris Woodhead has shares in and works for? There are no schools in those groups near the top of any schools league tables as far as I know. However some people might think there is a market. Trouble is about 80% of school fees pay teachers' wages and pensions so it's never going to be a very profitable thing to provide.

If you have views on the new definition of charitable in the new Charities Act 2006 then go and comment on the current consultation on that. There have always been fascinating legal issues about what charity is. I think one case looked at whether nuns who just prayed and did not charity work at all, just prayed to God 12 hours a day whether that was charity. Education until the law changed was always charitable. It's as good to teach the rich as the poor in my view and think of the massive burden we remove from tax payers by both paying our taxes and keeping our children out of the state system. We should be getting merit awards, tax breaks and invitations to No 10 in thanks for what we do.

I think there would have to be a certain amount of altruism for thanks, xenia.

Haven't read the whole thread but Twig I did at your comment. I just knew you'd get pulled up for it lol!

Not necessarily morally. I think we should thank people who work 80 hour weeks and earn huge amoungs and pay massive amounts of tax. They are heroes of teh state and should get medals rather than being the subject of stupid petty British jealousy.

Please go and read the Charity Commission draft guidance on what is "public benefit" and comment if you have time.
www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/enhancingcharities/pdfs/pbconsult.pdf

The new draft suggestion for "public benefit" for all charities, not just education but anything, animal rights, Catholic church etc...

"1. There must be an identifiable benefit

1. Benefit must be to the public, or a section of the

public

1. People on low incomes must be able to benefit
2. Any private benefit must be incidental"

It's very interesting. I was just reading it.. It's a bit like labour banning hunting (for class reasons only) but allowing fishing - so blatantly socialist this consultation.

Even their example below suggests they might think if only posh rich people can afford the opera then charitable status goes unless I suppose you're dishing out free tickets to those waiting in dole queues.It's going to be fun new law in loads of areas.

"For example, an arts charity which promotes the
arts by staging high class operatic performances in
a building which is of historic and architectural
importance. It has two purposes. The first purpose
is to advance the art of opera. The second is the
preservation of an important national building. It
would not be sufficient, for example, if the second
purpose provided benefit to the public but not the
first."

One benefit to society which is sometimes cited is that charities can relieve public funds.

For example, an independent school educates
pupils who would otherwise have to be educated
at public expense or a private hospital provides
medical care for patients who would otherwise be treated by the NHS.

Although we can take this type of benefit into account with other sorts of benefits, it would not normally be sufficient if there were no other public benefits."

I wonder what the thresholds will be. Most big private already do stuff like swap pupils from poor schools, let members of the public use their swimming pools sometimes though only after payment of a gym subscription. And it has to be low incomes. So I suppose if you aren't a rich school able to afford much and current parents don't want to pay 20% more to support poor children at the school...

I saw a few headmasters saying they would welcome not being subject to the straightjacket of charitable status anyway.

"Benefits must be balanced against any
?disbenefits? or harm
?Benefit? means the overall benefit to the public. It is
not simply a question of showing that some benefit
may result."

So if you could argue private schools are devisive and bad for the UK could someone once this is all in force challenge the public benefit and say the public at large suffer huge disbenefit because of the division in society private schools allegely cause?

I read it. I wonder if just sharing some lessons or letting the local comp play netball on your courts will be enough or whether you'll have to show 25% of your pupils are free places and incomes under £10k a year? It's an interesting document. Bodies like private members' clubs in London and the distressed gentlefolk association might find it hard to remain charities. it doesn't really matter that much as you just pay 17.5% more and then can claim back VAT on things bought I suppose.

So parents would have to decide would I rather have a 17.5% hike in fees to avoid local yobbos mixing with my children which is what I'm paying to avoid or wiull the fees have to go upt say 20% or 30% to provide free places to the very poor? I'm not sure keeping charitable status will really be worth it.

I work for an independent school.We have charitable status.Any surplus the school makes must be reinvested in the school,obviously the more surplus we make the more we can invest in plant ,IT buildings and in resruiting nad retaining quality staff,what we cannot do is make a profit and pay it out to shareholders,however there are some schools which are owner run and managed(in general I would avoid these like the plague)I would argue they do have a profit motive of a sort because the greater the value of the business ( in terms of being able to pay heads salaries etc) the more they are likely to sell it for.
Incidently because we are a charity we are not VAT registered which means that we pay enormous amouts of VAT both on surplys and on buildings cost plus we also pay employers NIC on salaries for teh employees so it is not always true to say that we don't pay tax

If you believe that private schools are divisive, is it not the case that good state schools in posh areas have the same effect ?

saw an advert in paper this week for people to invest in a new school in docklands (gave the impression it was for them to make money) and presumably to provide places for the offspring of the "yuppies" of the late eighties

C&i, yes but that's rare for the better private schools was my point. But things might change. Arguably the best of everything that is provided on this planet is actually that which is charged for and where people make profits so in fact children might do better if schools were making profits. I don't know. We'll see what happens.

I was just thinking aloud when I said divisive as it came out of the consultation document. What isn't clear from that is how much public benefit you are going to have to show. Is letting comp children use the field once a month enough or do you have to give 8 free places in every class to poor children?

I suspect strongly that the "investment" is part of some tax avoidance scheme. Every so often someone works out how to use an "enterprise" scheme to help pay school fees, then the government closes the loophole.