Removing charitable status for independent schools

[justanotherdaduser]

What do people here think of Labour policy of removing charitable status for private schools?

I am conflicted about it.

DD goes to a London independent and if in three years or so fees rise by 20%, it will not be easy for us.

But that's just our personal circumstances, and while I will be unhappy if fees go up by 20%, I can also see the point Labour is making -

that the school our DD goes to and hundreds of others like it are not really a charity. Most spend no more than 10% of their fee income on bursaries, if that. Vast majority of parents who send children there are comfortably above national average income. The charitable status is an anomaly and independent schools don't deserve tax breaks reserved for charities.

So was wondering how others feel about it.

(Applogies if this is not the right forum. I am mostly a lurker here and wasn't sure what's the best place to post this. Happy to move this somewhere more appropriate if required)

@00100001

''but they are...''

We can go around in circles about ''yes they are'' and no ''they are not''...utterly pointless.

They have charitable status but do nothing to deserve or warrant that status.

They are not real charities. They are elitist organisations that are only of value to the richest. They don't provide any kind of service for the greater good or society in general.

Hardly what anyone would think is the definition of charity.

They are not real charities. They are schools educating kids. Support them and provide the funds to which every pupil is entitled.

Well, we can go round in circles if you insist they aren't charities. They clearly are, otherwise how do they get Charity Status?
By providing education to the population, that's is it of the benefit of society.

People "donate" fees, and in return they provide a (generally) very good education to children.
They also will give that education to those who can't afford to "donate" the fees, this providing opportunities for those who otherwise might not afford to.

You might not agree with the aims and ethos. But it doesn't stop them being a charity.

If loads of children end up having to leave their school where they are settled because of this in non transition years, then the policy is wrong. A government harming children is always wrong.
So hopefully if they do it there will be a transition in place so it doesn’t affect the children already at the schools. And only applies to new joiners. That may also cause issues for certain kids being stuck eg bullied ones because that happens at all schools so I would also advocate for those to be able to transfer to another independent VAT free.

It is virtually impossible to get a place at a good state school outside year 7 and year 12 entry points so another possibility is to let these kids pick a state school of their choice. Otherwise I just cannot see how this is workable. Not the kids fault.

Post GE it will all be found to be too complex, blamed on "nasty right-wing lawyers standing up for the rich" and quietly parked. Win-win. Nice dog whistle policy for the left and zero need to actually action it.

I suspect that this will be what happens. A bit like when Theresa May wanted to open new grammar schools (which really would have hurt some of the independent senior schools).

Lots of wealthy, skilled parents with high cultural capital will raise standards for all.

The thing is, can you imagine how this would work in practice? A bunch of new children join and their parents monopolise talks given in school with how things were done at XYZ. It would drive everyone mad, especially as they didn't want to be there in the first place.

Friends whose children go to state school are clever. Their children are clever and do very well. They don't need me sashaying in to give them cultural capital.

The point about whether private schools are charities or not is a political one by and large. The Conservatives consider that they are while Labour consider that they are not. Don't think there's ever going to be agreement on this issue.

It really annoys me how education is used – by both the main parties – as a kind of dog-whistle politics. As @CruCru says it's an easy area in which to make all sorts of grandiose statements about private schools, grammar schools, raising standards, improving behaviour, giving every child the opportunity to fulfil his/her potential (whatever the fuck that actually means) etc without actually having to turn those words into action at any point.

FWIW I think it's stretching a point to consider private schools meet most people's definition of a charity, but I also think it's not nearly as likely to change as the opposition are currently claiming it is.

I think people see charities as one thing that dominates but it doesn’t discount education / private schools.

Presumably previous Labour governments or leaders in elections haven’t done this for a reason and I’d say because they knew there were low benefits and could be to detriment of a successful sector, well regarded o/s.

Starmer is not taking chances though so all policies are driving easy votes as not much else to offer.

I will add they probably don’t even need it to get votes atm so could take a different tack

@MarshaBradyo
That might be true but with boundary changes and marginal seats, so we really know what the actual outcome will be. If the swing in the marginal seats is big enough, it’s a Labour win. However with boundary changes it’s more challenging!

1% of bursaries given are 100% and therefore life changing. The rest are just discounts offered to families who are already doing ok compared to the rest of the country.

Charitable status I think from abouty the 1600s has been available for things like the relief of poverty, church, education.
When the last charity law was changed opera was one that had to be modified because the new test meant you had to let the poor in to see it free or cheaper to keep being charitable rather than the pure provision of the opera being the social good.. It was at that time private schools were forced based on their resources to make some provision for the poor or at least let people into their grounds and that kind of thing.
It has always been a thorny subject. I remember studying at university the cases about whether a completely closed convent where the nuns never left and prayed 24/7 was charitable compared with nuns who were teaching or nursing the sick all day for no pay. I think contemplative nuns were still protected but I might be wrong.

We can change the law however the Government chooses however but it is quite complicated to do it and not affect other charities or educational services.

Provision of education is a valid charitable purpose according to law.

It's not just schools that use that provision - any charity which provides education uses in as part of its legal aims.

This is but one of the reasons why it's such a complex area to attempt to unscramble - it could have an impact on the activities of many other charities. As could any measure permitting the transfer of charitable assets to private ownership. Then you have the added attraction of schools (such as Eton and Dulwich, and probably others) which have specific acts relating to their activities.

I suspect they'll leave this be, also because the likely 'value' is small compared to what could be raised from the vastly simpler measure of taxing fees (would apply to all schools, whether charities or not). And tax on fees has at least some Tory support (Gove)

Gove is not the PM. Sunak doesn’t want VAT levied. He sounds strong on it in PMQs and Gove is probably a lone voice. If Hunt doesn’t want to do this, it won’t happen.

If the fees rise by 20%, then will many families not be able to afford it? How many will then leave and go to state schools? Do the state schools have capacity for those additional DCs? I don't know, anybody have any idea of the numbers?

It would put way more pressure on oversubscribed state schools if parents of children at fee paying schools withdraw them. Most people can’t afford a 20% rise in something huge like school fees/mortgage type payments.

It’s a gimmicky policy with unintended consequences.

It’s good to see knowledge of legal situation etc less nuts that another recent thread.

Gimmick is a good word. It’s a shame for dc education to be used like this though.

Nobody does.

You'd have a fair amount that wouldn't be affected
Another set would move to a cheaper inde.
Some indes might close, those pupils could go either way... nobody knows.
Some will end up in state.

Some staff will lose their jobs and homes.

But again, nobody knows.
There's no real way of knowing.

oh I know who the PM is

And that it's not current Tory policy

Just pointing out that it would be unwise to assume that the Tories wouldn't do it. A review that would have set the conditions to introduce VAT on fees was in their last manifesto, so I think it's wrong to assume that this a lone voice maverick policy view only

This is the general direction of travel by both main parties. Might not affect your children’s education will affect your grandhildren. Will also affect our country, our health, our happiness to have the best people in the jobs that we need them to be in. So embrace a better educated mass population, why would you not want this direction of travel?

I'm very much against this. And both my kids are at state school.

People "donate" fees, and in return they provide a (generally) very good education to children.
They also will give that education to those who can't afford to "donate" the fees, this providing opportunities for those who otherwise might not afford to.

Well, no. Charities don't generally only provide the vast majority of their charitable activities solely to their donors, with a small amount reserved for non-donors. That's what's we call 'a business' that donates in kind to charity. Like Costa giving free cups to our school fete.

Otherwise you could suggest that a property developer is a charity because they provide a percentage of their developments as affordable homes is a charity. The fact that they have to do it in order to get planning permission is as relevant as the fact that private schools provide bursaries for the tax breaks (and remember it's not just VAT)

I see the 'schools are massively oversubscribed' is being wheeled out on this thread too. Everyone is aware that this is pretty much the peak year for the school population, right? And that primary schools are already dropping and next year is the peak for secondary admissions, as the 2000s baby boom washes through the school population?

‘Wheeled out’…

I’m sure anyone posting again is wheeling out their own views again.

If people are over reading it, don’t.

Sure. But this isn't opinions, it's facts.

I totally get that people have different views from me on this, and it's definitely a thorny subject. I'm someone who the prospect of this was the final nail in our plans to send our own kids private for secondary - but I still think it's the right way to go, but as others have said it's a political choice about how to prioritise a billion odd quid and there are a lot of unknowns here about what parents would actually do.

The state school population over the next decade or so is not one of those unknowns, and so it's relevant to the discussion that the state school population will be declining significantly between now and 2030 (and beyond.)

Is it so bad if state number reduces?

We could fund with same real term amount overall and increase per pupil. Or class sizes would reduce slightly rather than taking dc out of private to increase.