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?

Did people really not see this coming
That Labour seemed so subjective they allowed class health blind them to the impact of this policy is one of the reasons I did not trust them to govern a country- and I WAS a card carrying party member

For example, charitable purposes can include:

• relief of poverty
• education
• advancement of religion
• health and medicine
• research
• heritage and conservation
• the arts
• sport
• ecology
• human rights and citizenship
• community
• animal welfare
• the military, fire, police or ambulance services

To my mind education might be more of a charitable purpose than religion or the military, but there you go. I don’t get to choose what I think charities should be as they have plenty of legal regulation around this. For anyone interested, you can find out more about charitable purpose and public benefit here:

Charitable purposes - GOV.UK

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a817021ed915d74e6232442/PB1_The_public_benefit_requirement.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a8192a4e5274a2e87dbe599/Public_benefit_analysis_of_the_law.pdf

No school can offer unlimted burseries.

A lot of children even from poor families can pass the entrance tests.
I might be wrong but more parents than a few decades ago are aware of buseries and are able to google it/ask for buseries.

You’re a nasty spiteful one, eh?

It's a bit sad when you think it's about children receiving bursaries

That's a Labour legacy

For me personally, yes. I would much rather money funnelled into state schools to even out the opportunities.

Rather than a select few of middle class children with parents who have the time/inclination to get tutors/move house/be pushy, have access to more.

It's an idealistic viewpoint I'm sure, but education opportunities should be the same for all and not "better" if you can afford more, or you happen to have parents who are more focused on your education.

I always have in mind those musically/sporty/academically gifted children whose parents either don't have the time or interest in focusing on their education and how often they get over-looked. Whereas I feel in a system where all children had the same resources they may get the support they need from school (as it's missing at home).

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.

I partly agree with this - particularly that all the non-hardship 'scholarships' that some schools chuck around are nothing more than marketing. But it's also true that for somebody who's prepared to commit a lot of their income or savings to school fees, leaving almost nothing behind, but still can't quite afford it, a 20% bursary can make a big difference. And it's also about creating breadth within a school community - if all your students are either millionaires or on free school meals, with nothing in between, then that makes for quite a weird vibe

But the more basic answer to your point is that giving 10% bursaries is not what makes a school a charity: what makes it a charity is the fact that it's a non-profit making organisation whose purpose is education.

Charities aren't required to offer bursaries. They can be part of hownthey fulfill their charitable obligations but nt necessarily.

@pleasedonotfeedme just the opposite of what you've taken from my statement actually. I don't like the idea of schools divided by class at all.

I don't think anyone benefits from a society that divides people based on class. Let's be clear as well, it's not a financial split it's a class split.

If you're not quite as rich you might get access to your standard private school with support of a bursary. If you have no money or low income, you could potentially be fully funded to Eton/Harrow etc, but both opportunities are far and few between, and even these school have their class and financial hierarchies.

All children, no matter their background, should have the opportunity to succeed. Not just the wealthiest.

Always good to remember as well, if you can afford any of the fees (even with scrimping/saving/no extensions etc) you are undoubtedly in a better financial position than most people and it's good to realise that.

The only people I know that have got bursaries are sharp elbowed middle class parents who could afford the fees but would rather hide their money in their house and increased pensions so they can benefit from the school. My grandparents used to contribute towards a bursary fund thinking they were helping children who needed it, I pointed out that I didn’t think the children of accountants, teachers and managers were really the ‘deserving poor’.

No doubt @CillaDog you are careful not to spend any money helping your children succeed in other ways, by things like private tutors, extra-curricular clubs, living in a nicer area, saving money to help with university or a house deposit etc.

I agree all children should have a chance to succeed. And many do, as is frequently demonstrated on MN by all the kids who are doing fantastically well at their brilliant state schools.

The job of making all schools good enough is the government's, and it does that through taxation. The government decides how much tax to raise for education. Private school parents pay that tax along with everyone else (in fact disproportionately more, because they earn more and they also don't use the system, so they're only benefitting from state schools at a societal level rather than a personal level).

Of course, the problem of raising enough tax for schools alongside everything else is a very real one. But the government has somehow managed to convince part of the electorate that the level of state school funding is both the fault and the responsibility of private school parents, and that imposing VAT will somehow solve this. It's a clever piece of total bullshit, I'll give them that.

Well I think there are vast differences between my children attending a sports team locally on a Saturday and paying subs of a few pounds a month and £7000 a term school fees, @copperfrogs. We don't have any private schools locally to us, the nearest being a 40 minute drive away (nearer 2 hours in the bus), which for most parents working isn't feasible. I don't see fairness that postcode-based they don't even have the option to access the schools so it is again only the bankers, lawyers, doctors, and then the children of very wealthy footballers etc that have access to the private schools.

Plus supporting your child throughout university isn't in my opinion the same as attending PS, but if we're honest the yearly fees for private education outstrip what it costs to attend university in the UK. Parents who can afford 80/90% of private school fees will be able to support their children through university also.

Of course it is the governments job to fund state schools, I've not seen anyone say otherwise. I think what gets people's backs up is that the very wealthy upper and higher middle class think that the schools they pay for should be exempt from VAT, unlike any other business. I don't know anyone that thinks the VAT will fix the funding, but actually it's more a reflection of if you choose to function as a private business you should be paying.

As for disproportionate tax paying private parents, that's a myth they peddle to themselves. We don't use state schools so we are essentially "paying more" as our tax is paying for some others to go to school. There are huge swathes of childless people whose tax goes towards schools, people who have private healthcare paying tax towards the NHS they never use, and non-car drivers paying council tax towards pot holes on roads they will never drive. It is a mark of being a member of society that you don't always directly benefit from a tax paid, and unless you're earning well in excess of £125,000 a year (in which case school fees should be no problem) the reality is your tax is a very small amount in relation to spending and is probably accountable for a few bits of paper at a local school.

This seems quite short-sighted, as those children progress through the school, there will be fewer new students coming in to replace them.
That's a quick win for current parents, but for longevity and job security of staff it's problematic.

Around half of independent schools are charities so it’s not an insubstantial amount

You do realise there is more of a post code lottery for good state schools than access to a private school?

also, what is the quantitative limit for supporting your child that is acceptable? How do you account for differences in parental support? I can support my child in some ways at no cost that other parents would have to pay for. On the other hand I have a child with special educational needs who requires extra support - am i allowed (in your system) to spend that money to support them?

Just to get back to the OP’s question, yes locally bursaries have been hugely reduced. We’ve had several children leave our school already due to VAT. Where schools can they will try to help parents who just can’t pay the increase with bursaries, unfortunately leaving fewer for new entrants. The aim is to prevent existing children’s education being disrupted where schools can, especially in critical school years like GCSE years.

We know someone locally with a DS who has applied for Year 9 private school entry bursaries and they have been unable to secure one despite one parent being on NMW, the ds being extremely sporty and in county teams and pretty bright.

@Labraradabrador it's a postcode lottery for good state and private schools, but shouldn't be should it? All state schools should be good. Plus if you're financially well off, you just move don't you. So it's still an advantage.

I don't think there is a quantitative limit for supporting your child that's acceptable? Never claimed there was. You can spend whatever you want to support your child.

I merely suggested that it's unfair that for many (those who can never afford it, or those with parents who aren't interested in their education) they will never have access to the same opportunities, no matter how smart, or talented they are. If state schools were funded more fairly then they might have access to better resources, after schools, or better support for those with additional needs.

My belief is that all children should as much as possible get the same opportunities. That starts with schools being funded and supported the same. Same access to after school clubs, same access to books, computers, teachers, classes.

Of course I can't account for every parental difference in income or support, but you get far less children falling through the cracks if there is a good standard minimum available to all rather than a lottery of good standard if state schools in affluent areas, or private schools only for those who can afford and the rest make do and "top" up where they can. Those children who are extremely talented are more likely to thrive this way and actually having 5 successful children from low income background, over one successful from an upper middle class background appeals to me.

You are not mistaken you just missed the bit where Labour government changes meant they can't be charities anymore.

The VAT is primarily a tax on the parents paying fees and there is a court case next month.

The business rates applying to private schools with charitable status coming in soon. The private schools should challenge that too. It doesn’t apply to other charities and Nuffield Health won their case.

These schools shouldn’t just bend over backwards and give in to flawed ideology. They should fight back. It’s political and they should stand up for their legal rights.

It’s a rubbish situation and the whole VAT policy won’t raise the money the government promised and could even cost the taxpayer money in the end.

It may well cost the taxpayer in the end but Labour don’t care. The policy is ideological - they would’ve stopped charitable status if they could, but for some reason this was impossible so VAT is the alternative.

Vat on schools is very short sighted.
Education should not be targeted.

You are not mistaken you just missed the bit where Labour government changes meant they can't be charities anymore

@Andagain2 Those schools which are charities remain so. Where did you get the idea that Labour has withdrawn their charitable status?

Schools are now massively hammered with this 20% on fees. Of course the pot available for bursaries is reduced. They are hopefully using the money they would have spent on bursaries to keep their fees a little lower for current parents.

It seems rife atm. Petty and more about spite than economic gain or funding.

Threads like pensioners with a bus pass, farmers and food security, school children on a bursary

@CillaDog I find your ‘same for everyone’ ambition deeply unattractive. First and foremost as a parent of send, but even for my nt child I don’t think there is a one size fits all educational model. Even if state schools were all brilliant and exactly the same across the country there would be a role for private education, which would always cost more to deliver simply due to economies of scale.

I do agree that state schools should be better funded, I just don’t think that is the special responsibility of private schools, and if you make it a false trade off between state and private you will never achieve the funding necessary to make a bit of difference in the state sector. VAT will have not move the needle one way or the other (and still very much uncertain which side of net zero it will fall), but it will have a profound impact on individual children and families caught up in the rushed and poorly planned implementation. Many schools are understandably focusing their limited funds for bursaries on minimising disruption of existing children rather than broadening access.

@Labraradabrador it's not a same for everyone ambition, it's the same access to resources as a minimum. Of course all children need different things, and many different education models but different models should have access to same funding. Non traditional schools that offer outside learning for example should have ample funding to afford the required equipment for it to be fruitful. Doesn't have to be "typical" schooling. That same funding should be offered to a typical school for whatever resources they see fit. Doesn't have to be that same amount overall, some schools need more than others.

Quite simply though most people do not need private school and it's simply an elitist way to feel better than others. In cases where there are additional needs there should be smaller state schools that are funded properly to meet those needs. It's not beyond the realms of doable. Look at Finland for example.