private schools near me have reduced their bursary offers??

[Mizmumy]

Hi, very long time lurker- made a post to ask......as not sure I can see anything related to this.

My twins are in year 6. They are both really sporty and doing well academically. They are at the local primary and we applied for the local school. No issue with the school, but we thought to try our luck with a bursary for them both. We live in Surrey, and there are actually more private schools near us than state.

We have applied for the kids to a few different schools but have been refused for nearly all the applications. The bursars have all told us the schools have significantly reduced their bursary student offers for next year. I have friends who work in 2 of these schools and they shared that no bursaries were offered. We were not expecting 100% bursaries, looking at maybe a 10-20% reduction in fees.

Has anyone else come across this? Thanks for your answers if you have any?

@CillaDog your opening para may be true, but does that mean that the one child shouldn't get a fantastic opportunity because the other 20 can't?

Will you still be as gloaty if the taxpayer actually has to subsidise the VAT policy? After all, whatever happens it actually entrenches the privilege of the very rich at the expense of those who can only just about manage the fees.

Sounds very much like you’re very happy for private schools as long as the parents are very rich, but what you don’t like is a few less wealthy people just about affording it. In which case, that’s not some kind of brave socialist attitude, but just a forelock-tugging anger that people more like you might benefit from something that you perceive is really for the very rich.

This subject really does bring out some weird attitudes, one of which being that if you’re properly rich it’s all well and good to send your kid to a private school — but god forbid that a few less rich people might get above their allotted station in life.

I am not bashing these schools at all - it would be ridiculous for me to do so as someone who has made a career of working in independent schools. However, making more money than they lose out of a policy, which is what Eton will do, is, by definition, profit. If they then choose to spend this profit on good causes, that’s great, it doesn’t change the facts on the spreadsheet!

It's actually by definition not a profit, because they are charities not businesses. It's an operating surplus. Which has to be reinvested into education, rather than lining a shareholder'pocket.

For a charity (as most independent schools are), the term is not a “profit”, but a “surplus”. Many charities make surpluses in various areas and at various times; but the thing that makes them surpluses and not profits is that they are then spent back into the core purpose of the charity, rather than taken out as a pure profit for individuals or shareholders.

State schools and academies are also technically charities, just as lots of independent schools are. Their financial structures are not substantially different overall.

Edited to say x-posted with the post above!

I think many people do not understand the way educational charities work financially - to all intents and purposes they are the same in principle as an academy or state school, except that the funds come from fee income (and/or endowments in some cases) rather than the state/LEA. The vast majority of costs are salaries and expenditure on core educational activities, buildings, maintenance, and so on. If fewer parents send their kids as a result of the VAT policy, schools may have to close, making everyone who works in them redundant (teachers, admin staff, minibus drivers, caretakers, dinner ladies, all ordinary working people).

There is an adjustment happening as a result of the removal of the VAT exemption.
Realistically, private schools have always been for the wealthy, now the cut-off point is changing to slightly more wealthy than previously.

Indeed. We are asked for a voluntary contribution. I will no longer be making it. We are stretched to cover the vat, the raises in fees due to the NI increases, increased cost of living etc. I cannot pay toward other children's education when having difficulty finding that of my own.

Not at all. People are just pointing out that private school has always been out of reach for the majority of people.
Now it’s out of reach for a few more. They are welcomed to the same situation most are already in - state schools.

And how does that help overall? Those parents have already paid their taxes, so now the state education budget has to stretch to fund some more children. Any amount raised by the VAT - if there is any net amount raised at all - will be tiny in comparison. It may end up that the funding available for the state system could actually decrease or cost the taxpayer more. Do you think that is a good outcome?

The policy only works if private school parents stay put and pay the extra VAT. It doesn’t work if they go back into the state system. So what’s the point of it?

No private school is now treated as a charity.

All now pay business rates on utilities etc. This has had a huge impact on school finances - much more than VAT on fees.

Ours has made it clear that emergency funds are available for families struggling with the increase. We know this is subject to the usual bursary stipulations which IIRC are:

No major works on house (eg extension)
No high end car
No high end holidays
Both parents working or working towards maximising income, with clear plan
Reviewed annually

Those have always been the bursary rules

Top 10 private.

Hahahahahaha thats a good one.

of course they have. Parents are paying the 20% VAT inatead if contributing to the bursaty fund. Thank Labour and that chippy Education minister.

It's has been a fact for months hasn't it?

They are still charities and have charity registration numbers. The rates relief doesn’t affect that.

edited to add: but yes re the bursaries - we have one and the conditions are very strict. They do a very detailed audit of what we spend including going through our bank statements. Good thing we have a creaky old car and don’t take holidays!

The very old schools such as Eton will have substantial bursary funds from invested portfolios going back centuries. There are also wealthy individuals such as Peter Beckwith and Richard Branson who fund scholarships. Then you have much newer schools and girls schools with much less money for bursaries and most coming from fee income. It’s the latter group that will cut down on bursaries. It was inevitable.

They used to.

Our school had a policy that anyone who passed the entrance test was deserving of the education and they made it possible with bursaries, including 100%

They are now effectively treated as a business for tax purposes, including business rates.

So they can't serve charitable purposes as much as they would have done in the past. Partially a result of this they have a high proportion of bursary pupils and parents just about affording fees.

They have an ethical obligation to support these pupils through the rest of their education, until the next natural end point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this makes any practical difference at all. It's just that pragmatically, it was going to be close to impossible to remove this legally, so it has been removed for all practical purposes that I can see?

Just saw your edit..again, I don't think this is legally any different

Honestly, I don't think families which can afford to fund 80/90% of private school fees are really in need of "charity".

🤣🤣🤣

No there are big differences - including how charities report their accounts, inability to take profit, the regulator (charity commission), charitable duties, duties of trustees, how it’s structured, compliance with charity law and so on.

Being a charity is v different legally to being a company - the tax and regulatory systems are v different.

The term charity is not about the income of the recipients, but the idea of the “charitable purpose” of an organisation - eg solely for educational purposes. There is a list of charitable purposes which can include all sorts of different “public” benefits, and they crucially don’t have to have public benefit to all, or even wide application to the public, to be considered of public benefit generally. A sanctuary for thoroughbred race horses would still be considered to have public/charitable benefit, for example, even if it only served five horses and no members of the public at all! Ditto a medical charity for research.

Likewise Oxfam can have shops which make profits but it is still considered to have a charitable purpose.

Most families find the 10-20% if they really want to send the children to private and only these % are an issue and not the 80-90% still to be paid.

The rest of the children go to state schools.

I understand exactly what a charity is, and how charitable purposes are defined.

I simply don't agree that there is any public good in offering bursaries to families who really don't need such support.

There would be a public good in offering 100% bursaries to children from very disadvantaged backgrounds who would be likely to really benefit from the opportunity. However, the much smaller bursaries aimed at relatively wealthy middle class families are little more than a marketing ploy.

Well exactly.