Corbyn, vat, private schools

[NoisingUpNissan]

So... Just worried about corbyn and private schools.

I'm naturally labour but couldn't vote for him with this.

We have two kids in prep, couldn't really afford any extra cash. As it stands we have a leaking bathroom (no bath for a year) and old unreliable shitty car, certainly not entitled or priveledged people. Not that it should matter.

Very annoyed as they are only there because ASD and they had 33 kids in their classes!

So, just wondering... Does anybody think this is a real risk?

I don't care if I come across as being all out for myself, I'm all out for my kids. My son is just too autistic to deal with a big class size and needs the extra work as he's v bright.

The law defines what counts as charitable

Education is a legal charitable aim.

And I think education is definitely a public good.

YobaOljazUwaque - excellent post

“And I think education is definitely a public good.“

I don’t think education available only to 7% of the school population can be described as a public good. And the Charity Commission agrees with me. Private schools get about £100m annually in tax rebates- the public should surely see some “good” in exchange.

Charities have no obligation to be affordable for all, only that they make no overall profit on what they charge.

The test of a charity is not whether it makes a profit/surplus (income greater than expenditure in the Profit & Loss statement), but whether it is judged to have a charitable purpose and whether it fulfils that charitable purpose.

The Royal Opera House fulfils it's charitable purpose by having educational outreach departments, cheap ticket schemes and free events e.g. open air screenings of shows. If it only sold very expensive opera tickets it is unlikely that it would pass the charitable purpose test.

www.thirdsector.co.uk/does-royal-opera-house-pass-public-benefit-test-charities/governance/article/1016826

A charity can't distribute a surplus to shareholders or owners, but it can certainly create a surplus. A charity won't pay corporation tax on a surplus that it keeps in reserves because it is a charity, not because it didn't make a 'profit'.

On the other hand a ltd company could never distribute reserves and re-invest all cash in the company but it would still pay corporation tax.

Not all private schools are charities, plenty of organisations that provide education do not fulfil a charitable purpose and provision of education is not a charitable purpose in itself.

“Not all private schools are charities,”

No. But most are, and have an obligation to provide a benefit to the public- in exchange for the £100m annual tax rebate.

trainspotting. In everything I've ever read, or anyone with professional experience, the problem isn't that private school pupils are taking the places from their state school peers. Simply that in many schools/ areas the applications aren't forthcoming

Yes. Absolutely. The gap between state and private school A level results has narrowed anscis projected to continue to narrow. More needs to be done to address aspirations of (some) clever state educated pupils. It's complicated and due to various factors but not addressing it and choosing to bar independent applicants over state just means more places going to state school pupils who are 'less deserving' but with the right knowledge - so the mediocre boy from the middle class faith school, rather than the high performing boy from a disadvantaged family.

I heard that only half of private schools are registered as charities, so not most.

My understanding is 75%. Happy to be proved wrong, obviously.

thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/private-schools-are-ditching-charity-status

It's difficult to find figures on how many schools have charitable status - this article says 75%.

Ironically I suspect the older the school and the bigger the endowment fund the easier it is to put forward an argument for charitable status.

No. But most are, and have an obligation to provide a benefit to the public- in exchange for the £100m annual tax rebate.

But isn't the answer then to ensure that all charities fulfil the relevant criteria?

You still haven't given any view on the equivalent scenario for mental health which you said you would.

Charity law provides a list of things which are a public good. I linked to it above. Thousands of charities provide their benefits only to a very small subsection of those who might want to benefit. They are legitimately allowed to set their own criteria for what they want to achieve and raise money to achieve that. Charity law protects donors and provides scrutiny to ensure that donations are spent according to those original decisions.

No school operates without funds. No school has an infinite number of places. They all provide the "good" of education only to a set number of pupils, in exchange for money. The state only decided it had any obligation at all towards all children in the land a few decades ago. Meanwhile centuries ago numerous philanthropists decided to provide funds for education. Typically they might be originally founding a small school to educate a dozen choristers for a cathedral but with no objection to allowing additional pupils to pay their own way and join in the fun. A school founded in this way 700 years ago will still be offering free education to the dozen choristers for the cathedral even if the number of "other pupils" may now be much larger. As the schools grew over the centuries they have received further charitable donations and the rule of law says they may legitimately own their assets and continue to function in accordance with their articles of foundation.

When, relatively recently, the state decided it would ensure all children got a basic education, each educational charity which already existed was able to choose whether to integrate with the new state system or stay separate. The state didn't force them to integrate because the rule of law is quite important for being civilised.

Given that those that chose to integrate now have to operate on a per-pupil budget of less than half of what those who stayed separate can have, as well as having much less control over their intake and curriculum, I see no moral lack in the decisions of those that chose to stay separate. They are still holding true to their founding principles.

But away from education - your assertion that there is a problem with a charity being somehow not charitable if not everyone can afford the thing they do would apply to thousands of other charities and destroy charity law as we know it (opera houses and the National Trust are two examples I gave previously. There are thousands more)

Some more money for the state sector and better conditions for teachers are desperately needed but the real difference between state and private starts at home.

It is the attitudes of students and parents. If you could get students with higher expectations who value education and therefore you minimise low level disruption, then the difference would be great.

Behaviour and attitude is key and it starts at home. Rather than abolishing private schools, the focus should be on working with adults during pregnancy and early years.

Although anyone who trots out the line that small class sizes don't affect outcomes they bloody do. The whole feel of the room is calmer and there is a more free flow of communication. More a feel of community.

So to summarise, if I had a better paid job I would privately educate for sure for the reasons of class sizes and behavior.

They all provide the "good" of education only to a set number of pupils, in exchange for money.

That is not a charity, it is a business that provides education.

The public good element comes from using funds to provide scholarships and opening facilities to the public. Plenty of schools don't meet the criteria to be be a charity.

opera houses and the National Trust are two examples I gave previously.

I explained why that comparison doesn't work.

If the Royal Opera House just sold expensive theatre tickets it would just be another west end theatre. However the expensive theatre tickets fund charitable activities like outreach and low cost/free performances.

The National Trust provides additional benefits to members in return for a charitable contribution but its charitable purpose is conservation (regardless of whether the public can access the things it conserves) and it provides plenty of services free of charge.

I'm sure that Eton can put forward an argument to explain why they deserve charitable status (others may agree or disagree whether their argument holds water) but it won't be simply that it is a provider of education because that isn't enough.

@YobaOljazUwaque I still don’t really grasp your analogy, so I have to think about it some more.
What you seem to be skating round is the the Charity Commission has said explicitly that private schools simply providing education does not count as a “public good”. And neither does providing bursaries.

it’s a way of saying you’re getting at the very rich (who send their children to famous schools) to both please the middle classes and the poor

Except at DS's middle-league northern independent the parents are middle class. Most common professions - NHS (GPs, nurses, pharmacist, admin), teachers, police. Some small business owners. Nobody uses private jets or helicopters. Maybe one lives in £1m+ mansion (northern property prices). The reality is they are planning to impact many union members!

Is it that private schools don’t do enough for the wider community or more that people aren’t aware of the specifics that individual private schools do? E.g. DCs school are currently recruiting a Computing Science teacher including approx half time as outreach at a high school in one of the most deprived areas of the city (Wester Hailes) on top of a raft of existing initiatives, but you likely wouldn’t know anything about it unless you lived here or were involved with the school. DH said to me that he thinks it’s one of the better private schools for community outreach and I reminded him that prior to sending DC there, he would have assumed they did very little.

All hail the hypocrites! Following text taken from The Daily Express:

Which Labour MPs attended private school?

Jeremy Corbyn himself studied at Castle House Preparatory private school, in Shropshire, from age seven to age 11. He was then was a day student at Adam’s Grammar School. Despite his private schooling, Mr Corbyn’s marriage to second wife Claudia Bracchita disintegrated over where to send his son Benjamin for his education. Ms Bracchita wanted to send Benjamin to a grammar school but Mr Corbyn instead wanted him to attend a comprehensive school in his Islington North constituency. Mr Corbyn did not manage to convince his wife and the pair divorced in 1999 with Ms Bracchita saying: “I could not compromise my son’s future for my husband’s career.”

Diane Abbott

Hackney North MP Diane Abbot criticised colleague Harriet Harmon for choosing a grammar school for her children. Ms Abbott claimed: “She made the Labour Party look as if we do one thing and say another.” However, Ms Abbott was herself criticised and accused of hypocrisy when she chose to send her son to a private school. Ms Abbott said there were no schools in her area good enough for her son, saying: “It’s absolutely true that it’s inconsistent, to put it mildly, for someone who believes in a fairer and more egalitarian society to send their child to a private, fee-paying school. “I’ve always believed that private schools prop up the class structure of society. It’s inconsistent, it’s indefensible and that’s why I haven’t sought to defend it.”

James Schneider

James Schneider, director of strategic communications attended Winchester College, which is one of the oldest public schools in England. Mr Schneider then studied at Trinity College, Oxford, where he was the president of Oxford University Liberal Democrats.

Seumas Milne

Seumas Milne, director of communications and strategy also attended Winchester College in Hampshire. Mr Milne is the son of a former BBC Director-General and at school in 1974 stood in a mock election at the school on a Maoist Party ticket. He also sent both of his children to Grammar Schools.

Shami Chakrabarti

Shadow Attorney-General Shami Chakrabarti sent her children to private school, despite critiquing Theresa May’s plans to introduce more grammar schools. Appearing on Peston on Sunday in 2016, Ms Chakrabarti lashed out at “segregation in schooling” before being reminded her son attended private school. Ms Chakrabarti sent her son to £18,000 a year Dulwich College and said: “I live a charmed and privileged life, much more now than I ever did when I was a child, but people on the left have often had charmed and privileged lives.

“I live in a nice big house, and eat nice food, and my neighbours are homeless, and go to food banks. Does that make me a hypocrite, or does it make me someone who is trying to do best, not just for my own family, but for other people’s families too? And this thing about selection - if you’ve got money you will always be all right. If you don’t have money in this country you are increasingly not all right, and that is why I have joined the Labour Party.”

Valerie Vaz

Shadow leader of the House of Commons Valerie Vaz attended Twickenham County Grammar School, before studying at Bedford College, University of London. The MP for Walsall South also sent her daughter to £18,500 per year Latymer Upper School in Hammersmith.

Emily Thornberry

Emily Thornberry herself attended a secondary modern school but chose to send her children to selective schools. One of her sons was educated at the partially selective Dame Alice Owen’s state school, for which Ms Thornberry was criticised. Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools, said: “I celebrate her good sense as a parent and deplore her hypocrisy as a politician. When will those who espouse the virtues of comprehensive education apply the logic of their political message to their children?” It was later revealed her daughter also attended Dame Alice Owen’s state school.

Not sure people can be held responsible for the schools their parents sent them to, can they?

Not sure people can be held responsible for the schools their parents sent them to, can they?

Then why the endless hate campaign from the left against politicians who attended Eton and other public schools?

And it is not news that Abbott and Chakrabhati sent their children to private school. It’s already been mentioned on this thread!

Mark Fletcher who stood as a Green Party (opposed to selective education) candidate in a constituency near us in a recent election (not the last one) sent his son the Eton. When asked about this choice he pulled a sad face and said ‘it was a very very difficult decision’.
Really? All he had to do was apply for a place for his son at the local comprehensive - not difficult at all.

Not quite sure why people are posting these names - is it supposed to be somehow embarrassing to those of us on the Left?

No, it's just showing what a bunch of hyprocrites the Labour party are and that many of them are guilty of the very thing they're constantly criticising the Tories for, namely being privileged themselves. 'Baroness' Chakrabarti saying 'Does that make me a hyprocrite?' Yes, it fucking does, because what you're saying is 'I can do what I like and you're not allowed to say anything, because I'm just doing what's best for my family, but I'm going to make damn sure that you do the same'. You have to practise what you preach, or you're a hypocrite.

Surely obvious, I'd have thought Bertrand. Because people are rightfully filled with scorn that these individuals are attempting to deny others the choices that they themselves have enjoyed.

*can't do the same

So people who were sent to private school at age 4 are not allowed to grow up and say
"this is wrong, we should change it"?

So people who were taken to church as children are not allowed to become atheists when they grow up ?

So people whose parents drove gas guzzling cars and did not recycle
are not allowed to try to ameliorate Climate Change ?

Sins of the fathers and all that