So, Keir Starmer is intending to remove charitable status

[BadgerB]

He intends to use the money raised to "shake-up" the State schools.

Has he thought this through - the number of children whose parents just about manage fees, who will then transfer their kids to state schools.

How many? How much will this cost? And how soon can the necessary expansion be effected?

Of course, the really rich will be able to dig deeper into their pockets

And yet one in particular seems to produce a hell a lot of prime ministers for no real reason other than our terrible class system.

I imagine even without attending x establishment, people born into wealth and families with connections will always find it a hell of a lot easier to end up as PM etc. It's a bit chicken and egg, is it the fact that they attended that school, or the fact they managed to get in and afford the fees etc more telling as it shows their families standing in society. Charging more for private education will just create a bigger gulf, and unless many systems are fundamentally restructured; the class system will still have a huge influence.

Two of my kids go to non maintained SEN schools all paid for by my LA as no state schools in county offer speech therapy or OT as standard practice.

I always worry when people talk about closing indi schools as it takes out these specialist schools too. My son couldnt talk until he was 7. He started talking with 3 months of joining his specialist school.

The great thing about the race to the bottom is that it pushes kids who should in SEN schools out into mainstream and then the kid with ADHD takes up all the teachers and 1 ta time so all 30 of the kids get a shitter education. Everyone gets a slightly crapper education as a result.

Great leveler isnt it?

Meanwhile the charity status private selective in the village will just stop the school scooping up the gifted and talented but poor from.the UK and refocus on the kids from outside of the uk who need to learn English as they did before the pandemic.

Good. The government shouldn’t be propping up private schools in any way whatsoever. If there’s more children moving from private to state then there will need to be more investment in state schools which will benefit all children not just those in private education.

@admission

All state schools that are academies, which is now more than 50% of the state system are non-profit charitable trusts. So I would interested to know how Starmer will differentiate between Academies and private independent schools in removing their charitable status!

Whether they charge fees or not I would have thought.

But that's what Labour are all about and why they keep losing elections. They're not about improving peoples' lives. They're about punishing the privileged.

I agree this does hamper their success. People want opportunity and actually I think Blair offered that hence the landslide.

But his line re education didn’t target children in private - where there will be real negative impact to some lives for not much gain.

But people like the idea of hitting others like this even though financially it’s weak.

Why do people always try to justify the continuation of private education by claiming it benefits wider society? From foreign students bringing in money, to reducing the strain on the state.

Private education is one of the least charitable things anybody can do. It's about you and yours only. No charity involved.

It's a divisive system that runs through society in deeply unpleasant ways.

I doubt it will raise anything like as much money as claimed. Estimates I've seen of the value of the tax breaks to independent schools suggest that it is less than a third of the amount Starmer wants to raise - a little over £500M.

Even that figure assumes that people's behaviour doesn't change. The reality is that some parents will not be able to afford additional fees so will return their child to state school. That, of course, has a cost for the state - a child that currently costs the government nothing will start costing the taxpayer £5,100 per year. If all children who currently attend independent schools moved to the state sector (which would not, of course, happen), the state would have to find an additional £3.2 billion a year to fund state schools just to maintain the status quo, ignoring any capital costs from the need to build more schools to accommodate the pupils.

It should be noted that only around 50% of independent schools actually have charitable status, so a lot of schools wouldn't be affected at all. Various studies by non-political bodies have found that removing charitable status would only make a symbolic difference. It wouldn't raise any significant additional finance for the state and would remove the governance and oversight associated with charitable status.

Personally, I am in favour of removing charitable status from independent schools, but I am against pretending it will raise any significant amount of money to help state schools. It won't. Comprehensive reform is needed, not politicians playing to the gallery.

Phr47beidge totally agree. I don’t think it’d raise any real money. It does acknowledge the facts and update the law considerably to reflect modern society. If it has a knock on effect of improving education marginally for the vast majority than that is an added bonus.

It harks back to when education was a gift to be given to those worthy (usually boys) from those who are privileged enough to choose the winners. Education is now a right for all gladly .

Phr47, I agree 100%. I’m in favour of removing charitable status but in itself it’s not a huge money-raiser nor is it going to fix the problems that exist in the state sector.

@tilder just out of interest do you feel the same way about private health, private tutoring, private swimming lessons, private piano lessons, private dance classes, all of which could be said to be divisive between those that can afford to pay and those that cannot?

@Newgirls

Pretty sure Royal School of ballet will be just fine. Might take in a couple of extra Russians to cover it and sorted.

And exceptionally talented young dancers from the UK get fuck all? Lovely.

If the dancers are exceptionally talented then it’s in the royal ballet s business interest to train them. Don’t need to pander to the rich for that.

just out of interest do you feel the same way about private health, private tutoring, private swimming lessons, private piano lessons, private dance classes, all of which could be said to be divisive between those that can afford to pay and those that cannot?

Education is a fundamental human right. Dance classes and learning instruments are not the same thing. Also good state schools, properly funded, would be able to provide this either for free or massively subsidised.

You wouldn't need a tutor if the provision of education was equal across the sectors.

You wouldn't need private healthcare if the NHS was properly resourced.

@Placido

Anyone know where the big Chinese chains of U.K. private schools fall on charitable status. Clearly they aren’t pretending to be in the game for any reason rather than profit - are those chains exempt from charitable status?

They couldn't take profit out anyways if they are a charity?

Anyways you have a point. All of these private equity led companies trying to grow by buying private schools and averaging down on quality of provision while pumping up the fees, must be salivating themselves when the charitable preps which focus more on provision and less of profit are put under pressure. A lot of them will fold, and these guys will take over the good ones.

And what Starmer will be doing about these vultures making big 2x their money out of education, I don't know.

@Coronateachingagain why are those ‘vultures’ even allowed to buy up all these British schools in the first place?!

@Placido private equity is taking over many other sectors in the economy - not only education. Plus they pay a lot less tax in doing it because they pay carefully structured gains on capital tax, as opposed to income tax as the rest of the commons!

@Coronateachingagain but do these private businesses owned by a private equity business still get regarded as charities?
They wouldn’t buy them if they weren’t making profits?!! But charities can’t make profits?

@DarkDarkNight

Good. The government shouldn’t be propping up private schools in any way whatsoever. If there’s more children moving from private to state then there will need to be more investment in state schools which will benefit all children not just those in private education.

How is the government propping them up?

@00100001 because they don’t need to pay business rates or have VAT on fees. Also arguably some pretty big subsidies for military families - few cases of this being abused recently to the sting of hundreds of thousands of pounds to taxpayer.

I viewed an independent school. I never thought I would but my child has an EHCP and won't cope in a mainstream secondary. There is not a suitable specialist LA run school anywhere remotely near here. Any specialist schools that are LA run are already massively oversubscribed and parents have to fight to get places. These children can't be mopped up by the state system. I can't see how taxing the schools filling a void in provision helps the children any time soon. Many children in the private sector are there (whether funded by an EHCP or privately) because their state schools aren't suitable.

I didn't hear anything about how they will improve the state system. The amount of money they'll get isn't going to do that much. I'd be happier if they announced a policy to reduce class sizes which would benefit all children including those with SEN. Or commit to specific improvements in SEN provision (more schools?). But as normal they stick with an ideological point which doesn't really solve any of the problems.

I'm resigned to another term of the conservatives because if this is all Labour can bring to the table they are unlikely to win an election. So disappointing.

From what I understand, removing charitable status and increasing VAT would only serve to reduce bursaries and scholarships, thus reducing the number of intelligent children from poorer backgrounds entering into private education. Most independents are run as businesses so unlikely to effect the majority. Also surely parents would vote with their feet and only choose schools that don’t have charitable status. It just seems really poorly thought out.

*affect

I'm not at all keen on Keir Starmer but I agree with him on removing charitable status from private schools. It is ridiculous that they receive this concession when there is generally only a small percentage of scholarship students.

Solotravel If the CofE school is the only practical one for a child to attend, surely a child can't be refused admission for not attending church? My grandchildren go to a CofE school and neither they nor their parents attend church - and there are other schools within a reasonable distance.

[quote Placido]@Coronateachingagain but do these private businesses owned by a private equity business still get regarded as charities?
They wouldn’t buy them if they weren’t making profits?!! But charities can’t make profits?[/quote]
Well yes but if the charity decides they are unavailable or decides to unwind after the changes, then the trustees could decide to "hand it over" to one of these groups. I am should the are already going around trying to convince the trustees they could do this.