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)

From what I understand, it's a mixed picture - a rapidly declining secondary school would lose the per pupil funding, which might mean that it no longer has the economies of scale to offer all the GCSEs it currently does, or would have to scale back in other areas that don't immediately match the needs of the school. I'm not an expert on school planning but this is what I've read.

Here's one piece from Schools Week that sets out some of the issues and particularly the issues that are likely to disproportionately affect less privileged schools and those in direct LA control rather than academies.

But the reason I raised it was that it does mean the 'state schools are too full and there's no space' argument doesn't hold as much water as we look to future years, as does the ISC/Daily Mail claim about the need for new schools if the policy was enacted.

Also when I talk about oversubscribed I mean in my area and the year my dc is in. This will go up the system as she gets older and at a secondary point will continue. Extra influx would impact.

Other areas / years may differ

Also when I talk about oversubscribed I mean in my area and the year my dc is in. This will go up the system as she gets older and at a secondary point will continue. Extra influx would impact.

Yep mine's the same. My eldest is the absolute school population peak year nationally, Sod's law. And we similarly have lots of really oversubscribed schools, and the occasional one at the edges of the borough that aren't and that take the bulge classes etc. Higher levels of kids on FSM and less good results already. According to that article it's those schools and particularly those on LA control that are likely to bear the disproportionate impact of pupil decline without policy interventions - but that's probably one for another thread!

But you make the really good point that the decline won't be even, so some schools and areas will be hit harder and sooner.

I'm afraid I'm more sceptical that the govt would increase per pupil funding to plug the gap than I am that a government would do at least surface hypothecation of a popular manifesto commitment. And I'm also not keen on a greater proportion in private education without a big shift in the demographics accessing it from a social mobility point of view.

This could be an opportunity for state if rethought. One key criticism appears to be large class sizes.

I don’t know what the reduction will be but if we stop having 30 plus but more like 27 / 28 - just putting numbers out there - and keep an eye on overall real term funding than per pupil it could be a better situation for state just due to population decline.

Would need more thought. But it seems overly large classes (even compared to other countries) have been a point of contention

If the state didn't provide any education at all, would educating children be a charitable activity? (Almost certainly yes, which is why schools have historically been charities.)

If the state provided an education that was totally inadequate, then would educating children adequately be a charitable activity? (Again, almost certainly yes: we are failing children if we don't educate them properly.)

If your local state school is rated Ofsted inadequate, then is the alternative independent school carrying out a charitable activity? (Probably yes. Does it stop being a charity when the state school improves!?)

The money raised from this won’t be ring-fenced for education. In your dreams.

The 2019 Conservative manifesto didn’t mention vat on school fees at all. In fact I cannot see anything about expanding vat other than a vague reference to taxation post Brexit. Most Conservatives would not think that was tax on school fees. So please can those that think Sunak/Hunt think the same as Starmer, please reference it directly. I think they went clear water. Not similar policies.

it seems overly large classes (even compared to other countries) have been a point of contention

Worth noting that parents (and in particular supporters of private schools I guess) consistently over-estimate the impact of smaller class sizes. The data has repeatedly shown that, for neuro-typical children, a larger class size doesn't have the level of detrimental effect that people believe it does.

In fact, by far the biggest factor is the quality of teaching. Children do better in a large class with a good teacher than in a smaller class with a poor teacher, especially at secondary level.

So financial resources should be poured into helping teachers, whether that's through providing better equipment, a better teaching environment, giving them the opportunity to gain further qualifications, not having to deal with classroom disruption, feeling supported by the HT and SLT or whatever. Good teachers are a school's greatest asset – and no, I'm not a teacher myself, I'm just reporting what the data shows.

@thing47 all the privates around us are dramatically increasing class sizes due to teacher costs (pension increases being primary factor). Also decreasing the range of subjects possible for GCSE and A level. Lots of change afoot. Funnily enough their marketing doesn’t talk about small classes anymore so they will probably start reeling the same stats that really good teachers have always known - that if you are a great teacher it doesn’t matter how many pupils you are teaching (there seems to be some impact to some SEN children) It has always been one of those ‘justifiers’ for very high school fees (most of which is spent on differentiators like grounds staff, facilities which aren’t always used by all etc)

At 11+ I wanted about 24 per class in our children's fee paying schools as that gives you enough to have enough children who contribute in class to get debates going even if some are more quiet children but not so many it is too much.

@Xenia there is zero difference between 25 and 30

So please can those that think Sunak/Hunt think the same as Starmer, please reference it directly

I don't think anyone has attributed it to those individuals.

It's Gove (mainly) and others.

@RoseAndRose
But Gove isn’t calling the shots. That’s my point. It’s Sunak and Hunt. Yet posters say the Cons will do the same because Gove murmured something in 2017 (as found in the Guardian). Politics moves on.

One thing we all know is that this policy will be a can of worms. Around me, it’s mostly people who live in the leafy lanes who send DC to private school. With increased mortgage payments looming, school fees might become less attractive. So they apply for the state schools at 4 and 11. These are decent schools and are already stuffed with the middle classes (mostly). So the unsuccessful applicants probably won’t be the aspiring private school parent. It will be those on the edge of the catchment or further out. They will be displaced.

I think that's something of a straw man.

The proposal has been under discussion by the Tories on and off over the last 5 years. They're not going with it for now (and will of course oppose it when Labour talks about it) But it would be unwise to assume this is something the Tories would never bring forward (echo of university tuition fees - who would have thought Labour would do that?)

What do the people who haven't had kids at all get back?

Does the same go for people with private health insurance?

I'm actually not against a per-pupil funding model such as in Australia but it may be too late to make it work here in terms of the structure of the education system - in Australia access to private schools is much broader because of the funding model, which largely exists because all faith schools are sensibly in the private sector, not getting near or full funding from the state to discriminate against 5 year olds.

Plenty of schools manage to discriminate against 5 year olds without being a faith school. My son started off at our local primary but it became apparent he had Sen and to cut a very long story short we were basically forced out of the school. He then went to another school which just happened to be c of e and they were very inclusive and he got on amazingly.

@TizerorFizz the fact is they couldn’t do it before under EU law. Just you watch this space for the u turn. Such a tiny minority of people will be affected by this it is a very easy levy to put on and the schools will last as they will just change their quota of foreign students which most of them limit at present. Tories have got an absolute nightmare of a few years ahead of them and are very likely to lose the next election and this would be very popular with a huge swathe of the country. State school parents I have spoken to are insulted by Sunak’s presumption that private school parents are more aspirational (I am talking NHS docs, vets, paediatric intensive care nurses, those sort of ‘unaspirational’ folk) What a clanger he made there!

I don’t it was a clinger in context. He talked about people who saved and went without to afford fees. Like many MN parents do. He is saying they should have the choice to aspire to these schools. Not that other people don’t aspire to be anything.

Also, regarding Labour and uni fees. This was done to further expand university education. It’s worked. So many more go to university despite the fees. You cannot have something for nothing. Personally I would have kept a cap on places.

As opposed to removing the status, I'd prefer to see the expectation that they work up to and deserve the status. Realistically, the number of kids in private education couldn't be absorbed by the public system, and to continue to price MC children out, you then increase the demands in the public system, which won't suddenly magically benefit from any more money than it already does

And given many 'charities' only give a fraction of their earnings to an actual charity, realistically, how is it any different?

Realistically, the number of kids in private education couldn't be absorbed by the public system,

This isn't correct. The forecast decline in the state school population between now at 2030 is greater than the entire private school population.

There would obviously be local areas where the impact would be greater but from a straightforward public spending perspective, the places are very much there.

Totally agree with you and your experience and your son's was really shit. I've seen the same happen at our CofE primary, which is great if your kid is 100% straightforward but they are awful with SEN and bullying.

The other big area of discrimination is by house price. But I don't think it's ok that just because those kinds of discrimination exist that it's ok to have discrimination actively sponsored by the state (rather than it being an unintended consequence of a system rather than a design feature.)

Anyway another derail - sorry!

I think the parents who currently use private schools need to very quickly get on to their schools and ask them why they aren’t doing more for wider communities. Suspect not many parents do this. Mostly because they don’t see what happens in state schools. I am a relatively well known author, your children might have read something I have written. I don’t charge state schools for my author talks. Why? Because I know there is no budget and I have children in state schools and I have seen the decimation by Tories through dire funding. My choice not to charge doesn’t benefit my children but I can see beyond their needs and appreciate that all children should get to meet someone who writes for a living and know it is a possibility for them.