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

[quote VanCleefArpels]@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?[/quote]
None of these are as divisive as private education. None compare to the way private education results in a stratified society. It would be highly disingenuous to suggest they do.

I’m surprised by the strength of feeling on this. I’d put it under ‘cultural housekeeping’ rather than ‘culture war’. Whilst I feel deeply for those with sen who benefit from private education I don’t see this as being closely connected to the schools‘ charitable status. They have no obligation to help any child and simply do a few tick box exercises to gain a tax benefit. Further, scholarships will always be offered to kids getting high grades - they can’t only rely on rich kids to work hard to get the grades to make the school look good on the league tables. I know a handful of kids who had scholarships all of whom got top top grades - significantly better than the schools average. Without the scholarship kids I imagine the league tables look quite different 😏

@Coronateachingagain but how have we got ourselves in the situation that Guineas investors are making mega bucks from British charities. Not interested in what happens after changes, but in how that is ever seen as ok right now.

@ellyeth

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.

A church goer from further away would take a place from a child who lived nearer but didn't go to church. Allocation of places does not take into account whether it's the nearest suitable school or not- it purely looks at where you come based on their admissions criteria. It can and does discriminates against children who don't go to church!

@tilder it would be easy to construct an argument that certain sports, orchestras and dance companies/ acting cohorts are disproportionately populated by people who came from families who were able to access those resources that the majority could not. So directly analogous in my view.

@DameAlyson

How will you distinguish between private schools with charitable status and other entities which exist for educational purposes and have charitable status?

I see he also wants 'compulsory work placements with local employers' and
'every primary and secondary child to have access to weekly extracurricular activities and after school clubs'.

What incentives will there be for local employers to provide work placements and who will provide these extracurricular activities?

And will he instigate a bonfire of all the paperwork required for local employers to provide work placements?

A local school approached me and I was initially very happy to provide work experience in my small business. That's until they sent through the paperwork and checklists which were, frankly, ridiculous and would have taken me several hours to complete. I spoke to the teacher and told her I'd be unable to help due to the paperwork burden and she just glibly replied, "yes, we know, a lot of local businesses have said the same".

@pokemoncard A church goer from further away would take a place from a child who lived nearer but didn't go to church. Allocation of places does not take into account whether it's the nearest suitable school or not- it purely looks at where you come based on their admissions criteria. It can and does discriminates against children who don't go to church!

That depends entirely on the admissions criteria which are individual to each school. We have a very popular secondary church school that we looked into for my DS. People living close to the school get priority, regardless of worship, basically within easy walking distance of a couple of miles. It was people living further away who then were admitted (or not) according to religious point scoring AND distance, so someone living, say 5 miles away with no religious points would have priority over someone living 10 miles away with no points. Most years, you'd still get a place if you lived within, say, 3,4,5 miles with no religious points as they opened it up once all the religious points applicants had got their places.

My kids attend/attended a private secondary but I agree they shouldn’t be charities. Neither should churches or any body that’s reason for existing isn’t at least a 75% charitable purpose (some charities have aims or attached businesses so can see how it’s muddy hence the not 100%). And I’m sorry, but upkeep of a church building not owned by the state or some grade I listed posh house and grounds for a school, doesn’t count as charity.

Instead like any business they should get the equivalent of Gift Aid and just claim back their proven charitable contributions from tax on profits.

However in return every parent paying fees should be able to offset an allowance of up to 50% of whatever is the going funding to state schools that their child isn’t getting. Rate depends on income tax, the lower the income, the higher the rate. High income, no offset. The state saves money not educating them. Lower income parents aren’t costed out of private education. High earners can pay more and get nothing back.

I don’t expect to get much support, but I’d vote for this.

6% of gross fees paid at my dc’s school fund bursaries. 10% of pupils receive bursary support.
Removing charitable status will instantly remove any need for bursaries as that’s the first thing to go as that’s 6% covered off. So 10% of pupils will be required to leave and enter the state system and require state funding.
The sharing of resources will also get knocked on the head. Instead they can charge groups for use of the facilities (eg sports facilities which are currently used at my dc’s school by various community groups at a free or heavily subsidised rate.
There will then follow a fee rise that matches the vat applied. If 5% then nothing will change for parents. They will still pay the same (yet 10% of pupils will need to leave if bursaries go). If vat of 20% is applied then a fee increase of 14% will be needed. Undoubtedly a significant proportion will leave fee paying schools as too expensive and enter the state system, needing funding at 5k a child. I cannot therefore see how enough money will be raised to make a tangible difference in the state system.
Whilst a two tier education system is unpalatable, by removing the private system you are entering a race to the bottom. Why do we collectively want to reduce the standard of education provided to our nation’s children? Surely we should always be aiming higher and lobbying for state funding to match that in private schools and learn from private schools how education can best be delivered to maximum benefit for society.

@tilder oh I think private health would have been up there, except that these private healthier cars companies already managed to form an oligopoly. It is just that the private equity owned education companies haven't got there yet!

[quote Placido]@Coronateachingagain but how have we got ourselves in the situation that Guineas investors are making mega bucks from British charities. Not interested in what happens after changes, but in how that is ever seen as ok right now.[/quote]
They are not. Yet. It is just their prospect would improve massively - on top of the advantages they already enjoy

Good idea.

On a separate point, churches run the food banks and night shelters, support overseas and international charities as well as local ones, they offer counselling and debt advice (to anyone, not just those who attend church), run social groups and provide meals for old people (again to anyone, not just those who attend church), run baby/toddler groups ( open to all), feed local homeless/drug addicts, offer pastoral support, provide furniture and clothes to those in need and lots more. You really can’t compare them to private schools.

@leftandaright

6% of gross fees paid at my dc’s school fund bursaries. 10% of pupils receive bursary support. Removing charitable status will instantly remove any need for bursaries as that’s the first thing to go as that’s 6% covered off. So 10% of pupils will be required to leave and enter the state system and require state funding. The sharing of resources will also get knocked on the head. Instead they can charge groups for use of the facilities (eg sports facilities which are currently used at my dc’s school by various community groups at a free or heavily subsidised rate. There will then follow a fee rise that matches the vat applied. If 5% then nothing will change for parents. They will still pay the same (yet 10% of pupils will need to leave if bursaries go). If vat of 20% is applied then a fee increase of 14% will be needed. Undoubtedly a significant proportion will leave fee paying schools as too expensive and enter the state system, needing funding at 5k a child. I cannot therefore see how enough money will be raised to make a tangible difference in the state system. Whilst a two tier education system is unpalatable, by removing the private system you are entering a race to the bottom. Why do we collectively want to reduce the standard of education provided to our nation’s children? Surely we should always be aiming higher and lobbying for state funding to match that in private schools and learn from private schools how education can best be delivered to maximum benefit for society.

In an ideal world we would be assimilating the private school buildings, teachers and pupils into the state system. That would not reduce the standard of education provided to our nation’s children - it would level the playing field and most likely enhance the overall standard. We should focus on the raising the standard of lower end of achievers not the top end.

@peachespumpkin at best you can say some churches. Those churches that do all those things should be able to access tax rebates and funding and so on for all their charitable activities. Many churches don’t run those things. Those that just run events for their members, well they’re members clubs … they are not charities.

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?

As you can't buy a charity, then the schools they buy up,are ones which do not have charitable status. I've just googled a couple recently bought to double check, and neither were charities, though one has a separate associated but freestanding charitable foundation which is essentially its bursary pot. That foundation was, of course, not part of the sale

@ellyeth

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.

I live in London, the school I refer to is my closest (358m away, actually) but my DS didn't get in. 20 out of 30 places are given to church goers by order of priority- those in the parish, those outside the parish but attending certain other churches and any church goers . The other 10 are for everyone else - looked after children first, siblings and then plebs like us based on distance from the school. They had to take 31 children in the year we applied because a sibling parent appealed. No one in the last category got in in and haven't for some time.

The school we got, despite me listing 5 others nearer, was over 4 miles away which is a lot in London when you have traffic to deal with. A huge 4 form entry school. So we went to a local private instead.

We stayed on the waiting lists for 3 state schools for two years but got nowhere.

So, yeah, I am bitter that I couldn't get my DC into my local school because the church controls admissions but at least we had the option of private.

Peaches - some churches might do those things. All the ones I’ve known (village churches) hold services for a shrinking number of people and fundraise to maintain the fabric of their buildings, with maybe a few other collections a year. The vicar visits ill people and obviously the church is the venue for weddings and funerals (which people pay for) but there are none of the things you list.

@Coronateachingagain - 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.

No, they couldn't. If a charity closes it must either use its remaining assets for its charitable purposes or give those assets to another charity with similar purposes. The trustees could sell the physical assets (land, buildings, etc.) to a business, but they must do so at the full market price. The money must not, under any circumstances, make its way back to the business that buys the assets.

@PeachesPumpkin

Good idea.

On a separate point, churches run the food banks and night shelters, support overseas and international charities as well as local ones, they offer counselling and debt advice (to anyone, not just those who attend church), run social groups and provide meals for old people (again to anyone, not just those who attend church), run baby/toddler groups ( open to all), feed local homeless/drug addicts, offer pastoral support, provide furniture and clothes to those in need and lots more. You really can’t compare them to private schools.

Some churches might. None of the ones near me do

Well, some of them host baby classes but only because they let out their hall on a commercial basis to local franchisees of classes

My son’s nursery is in a church building, and during lockdown, they refused to give any rent reduction to the family which runs it, despite the nursery using no electricity during that time, the caretaker being furloughed etc so the churches own overheads being significantly reduced

They don’t provide any of the services you mention but do rent out their premises at the same rate as the pub function room (ie market rate)

Yet they claim to be a charity

At least charity registered private schools make some effort to tick boxes and share facilities and fundraise

I would be surprised if none of the churches near you support other charities. That would be very unusual.

I would agree that most churches do not run food banks or night shelters, not do they do most of the other things listed by PeachesPumpkin. Social groups and pastoral support are pretty much universal and most churches have some ability to assist those most in need, e.g. by supplying money or clothing. Some run other activities listed themselves and others may have members involved in such things, but most don't run food banks, night shelters, etc. themselves.

Different churches approach outside lettings differently. Most of those in my area did not charge renters anything during lockdown on the grounds that they weren't using the premises. A church, as a charity, is required to rent the premises for the market rate in most situations. In my local area, most churches charge commercial renters such as nurseries the full market rate but offer reduced rates to charitable bodies.

I think all churches are a darn sight more charitable that elite schools. Bursaries are often funded by ex pupils not through a charitable foundation.

Surely this would just mean that private schools would have to find ways to reduce costs to retain the fee payers. The most obvious one is to withdraw all scholarships and bursaries and pass on that saving to full fee payers. It would be a crying shame.

@Legoninjago1 Most scholarships are about accolade these days not fee reduction. And many private schools give bursaries to very middle class families that know how to portray their finances (threads about this on here - I know not all families do this but you cannot deny that many do) Eton is a rare example of having a really really good bursary system (and a head who was a recipient of one himself) and they are so well funded that losing charitable status will be like water off a ducks back to them.
Crying shame - nope. Better state schools mean the thousands of children living in poverty and going to under par state schools will thrives - as will those on bursaries who are back in the state system.
The only thing I agree with really on here is that there needs to be huge thought put to the children with SEN who need smaller classes - so we need excellent SEN state schools again, properly funded.

[quote Placido]@Legoninjago1 Most scholarships are about accolade these days not fee reduction. And many private schools give bursaries to very middle class families that know how to portray their finances (threads about this on here - I know not all families do this but you cannot deny that many do) Eton is a rare example of having a really really good bursary system (and a head who was a recipient of one himself) and they are so well funded that losing charitable status will be like water off a ducks back to them.
Crying shame - nope. Better state schools mean the thousands of children living in poverty and going to under par state schools will thrives - as will those on bursaries who are back in the state system.
The only thing I agree with really on here is that there needs to be huge thought put to the children with SEN who need smaller classes - so we need excellent SEN state schools again, properly funded.[/quote]
The school we use has an excellent range of bursaries including over 100%

How do people alter / hide their finances?

@MarshaBradyo
We have friends with a house in grandparents name, who rent a house and put all their expenses through their catering business. They have two children on 100% boarding bursaries.
They also have exotic and glamorous holidays, throw big parties, buy tons of clothes, go to endless pop concerts (when we could do such things anyway!)
They drive crap cars though as these are visible.
Not the norm, but they exist - we all know some.