Should giving a bursary to an existing pupil count towards the 'charity provision' of a private school?

[gaussgirl]

Seriously, what do you think?

Someone I know has 2 x DSs at a private prep, largely financed via Daddy's banking bonus. That has gone up in smoke. My acquaintance says it'll be OK as she's SURE the school will give them some financial help because they will want to keep such 'in-house' school socialised DCs, AND by providing bursaries in this way, the school will be able to meet its 'doing good for the wider community' (or however it goes) commitment to enable it to maintain its charitable status.

Sadly I suspect she's right- it will! Privilege has always begat privilege.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the charity status thing- as long as the school IS actually providing a genuine community service! But I'd think paying for a DC from a poor home to get the sort of education available to the wealthy at this school would meet the criteria better than keeping 'one of their own' in clover.

And mine.

To state the obvious, and without reading every single post on this.. It wouldn't count towards enhancing their charitable status, but it would help out the children concerned.

To enhance their charitable status the action of giving out a bursary would have to demonstrate that it increased access to the school to a pupil from a poorer background, which, as they are existing pupils wouldn't count.

The Charity Commission will want to see a lot more than just helping out existing parents falling on hard times, although increasingly that may play a part also.

And sorry - why on earth is it your tax money GG?

As an aside,I work in the NHS. Therefore I also pay some of my own wages!

MY tax money means the tax money I pay. Having charity status means that the school gets tax relief on its income. That shortfall in treasury funds either has to come from somewhere else or means public services won't be funded as the money isn't there.

I don't think it is fair or moral that a charitable status school can use this benefit to ensure existing students in the school should be allowed to continue receiving the benefits of that school UNLESS that child receives that bursary under the same criteria as a poor but bright local child.

This is evidently not likely to be the case in the situation I have described.

But surely the shortfall that not paying tax on their income is vastly outweighed by the cost of putting all those children who benefit from this, back into state education system. Which, simply could not cope if everyone who educates their children privately decided overnight to put their children into state school.

I think most people on here are saying that the school will not be getting "credit" from the charity commissioners for doing this. If the school are choosing to help out some of the families there, from their income, for whatever reasons, then that's up to them as a business.

So - it's not coming from anyones taxes if a school gives a bursary to a reasonably-well-of family.

"That shortfall in treasury funds"

The fact that a charitable body gets tax relief doesn't create a shortfall in treasury funds...

Would I be right in thinking most if not all those who don't see a problem in the scenario detailed in my OP are those who perhaps benefit from having a DC at private schools with charitable status?

Just a thought.

I can't answer for anyone else, but I don't have children at private school.

Just another thought...

Average tax saving made by govt for each child educated Privately:- Appx £5,000 per annum.

Average tax saving offered by govt in form of charitable status for each child educated privately: appx £1,200 per annum.

So yes, in my own, biased, user of the private system way, I certainly don't see where your 'it's my tax money' argument stems from.

I'm a user of the private system but I think bursaries should be for families that need them, not ones that rely on bonuses on top of their salary to pay the fees. Bonuses are just extras and shouldn't be relied upon. You shouldn't base funding your child's education on a 'gift' from your employer/tax payer. Do his wages not cover the fees? Could the mother not work aswell? There are alot of parents who are alot worse off working two jobs to fund their child's education, I met one working on the checkout in Morrisons last week. I'm sure he earns alot more than her!

Thanks muminscotland- but you weren't one of those who couldn't see the problem!

And thanks squiffy for your selfless contribution.

phantom, I suspect the father in the OP earns considerably more than a Morrisons checkout worker- which is why I object to the school maintaining its charity status on the back of subsidising his DCs!

It depends on how they allocate their bursaries. Each school is different so the threashold for one may be alot lower than the threshold for another. They all will look at the household income though as well as any property. They all request that the families look for alternative means, equity release for example. There is normally a long que for bursaries aswell so they will be assessed on a needs first basis.

I don't think they have a hope in hell to be honest. It would be different if he had lost his job though or the fee payer was ill but no one should rely on a bonus from work to pay school fees. It's not guarnteed income and is wreckless to rely on it to pay school fees.

Litchick, see here

I don't have the children in the private system. But then I think that the arguments re "my tax money" are pretty clear cut whether you do or not.

No - my daughter is at a French private school where the majority of costs are met by the state (same as any French school) and a minority of costs are met by parents and paid to a school run as a business, for profit.

I hope the mother mentioned in your OP has the wrong end of the stick. Giving bursaries to existing pupils because Banker Daddy has lost his fat bonus can't possibly be described as an act of charity.

FWIW I don't have a child in private education and I was educated in both state and private schools. I object the charitable status of private schools. 'Education' may be a charitable aim but private schools are clearly not genuine charities that work for the common good. Quite the reverse.

"private schools are clearly not genuine charities that work for the common good"

I disagree. And I cannot possibly understand why you think private schools are not acting for the common good.

oh please, Anna. Private schools rarely add anything to the general community. They are out for their own profit and/or good.

Since a very large proportion of the movers and shakers in politics and business in the UK were educated at private schools, it is quite clear that private schools add a huge amount to the UK as a whole...

Gauss you seem to be intentionally ignoring Squiffeys excellent post which sums up why the money is not yours and why private school kids save you the tax payer money.

Why are you choosing to ignore the maths??

Why don't you feel sorry for those children that face the upheaval of moving schools, missing their friends etc

Fallatious argument, Anna huit huit huit. tres fallatious in fact.

Why? You cannot say it is fallacious and not justify why.

Well, the school that my two go to gave me a bursary when my husband died.

Does that count as being charity? Because I rather think that it does.

My kids had already suffered enough upset and loss without me needing to move them to a different school. I see it as trying to maintain their usual life rather than 'keeping them in clover' but doubtless you are entitled to your opinion. As am I.

Sounds like exactly the kind of case for which bursaries are designed.