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)

It is a different ethos though, Steiner, no exams etc.

Thats interesting Aleaia -so does that mean that no children who went to Steiner schools can go to university since universities require exam qualifications?

@Andante57 - Steiner children just had to do 1 year in state public school at the end to get the Matura, if they wanted to go to university. So they had 1 extra year. All the ones I know passed extremely well and were high achievers. So the Steiner ethos actually worked really well for them. They all came from alternative hippy families though and played lots of music etc, that kind of thing. The parents did not want the pressure and rigidity of the state system. They wanted more performing arts, creativity, exploring real talents, that kind of thing.

It varies very widely. The churches will often partly or fully subsidise their own schools. State subsidy can be quite high. Different states have different rules on whether schools can charge fees at all. I think €5k euros is tax deductible.

Aleaiactaest Thank you for answering my question.

I have a friend in the UK who sends her very gifted autistic child to a Steiner school here. They don’t make a fuss about attendance and work with her on her particular interests at the time (anything from a specialist musical instrument, to baking to mediavel poetry writing etc). Friend gets funding for it from the local authority. We need to bear these kids in mind.

It is very unusual in many other countries to talk about which school a president or prime minister went to. It is not even considered relevant, university perhaps, but not the school. The university being used more to showcase the person’s competence/intelligence.
Perhaps we should look at our political system first and question why those persons are getting voted in rather than just look at the schools they came from?
And why is nobody critiquing Oxford university if they produced Boris Johnson? Or perhaps he is quite clever, just morally corrupt. However, who is to blame for moral corruption? Is it the school, the parents, the uni, the invidious, the party, the public for voting the party in?

@Andante57 I don't think that Winchester is different from any other public school, the pupils have the same attitudes. DS wanted to be a different environment and asked to leave.

He would have stayed if we had insisted but as it turned out he knew best. He went on to Oxford after his state school. We were very lucky it was a great school with excellent teachers , he settled in straight away.

@Lettherebedelight - did your DS go to one of the very well known Sixth Form Colleges? (E.g the likes of the one in Winchester, Cambridge etc)

I really cannot complain about our state schools in England. Our children have vastly had outstanding teaching. Yes, the buildings aren’t always great, terrible toilets/lunch offering etc, but the actual education has been outstanding.

No @Aleaiactaest we don't live near any of those 6th forms. DS found the teaching outstanding and loved every minute of 6th form , we like you were very lucky with our choice.
He had some really inspiring teachers.

I think it’s pretty despicable to attack children’s education in an effort to worsen class tensions in order to seize power. Have lost all respect for Starmer over this, and unless he drops this policy I’ll have to vote Tory (despite loathing them).

Starmer says his policy would raise £1.7billion. Sounds like a lot, right? Unless you reflect on the fact that in 2020-21, the government spent £2.5 billion on management consultants to tell the government what to do 🤔

Honestly, raising £1.7 billion is sod all in terms of the government’s budget, this policy is not about raising money, it’s about provoking class hatred to get more votes for Labour. Does Starmer care about the children who’ll have to change school in the middle of their education? About as much as Boris cared about the nurses forced out by Brexit.

Starmer is lying anyway, he knows his figures don’t add up, he’s as bad as Boris bloody Johnson was with his bus sign claiming leaving the EU would raise a fortune for the NHS (ha!).

This issue of should private school fees incur VAT has been looked at many many times before, including by Labour in the 1970s, and it’s always been concluded that the policy would cost more than it would save, for all the obvious reasons such as increased pressure on state sector and collapse of smaller private schools particularly those specialising in supporting SEN children, etc.

If politicians want to improve state education they need to appoint better Education Ministers, and stop seeing it as a crap ‘stepping stone’ job for jokers.

I’ve read figures which show that government spending on education is over £100bn a year. Even if the policy did raise the amounts predicted (unlikely in my opinion), I cannot see how they think that a 1.7% increase in state education funding will lead to vast improvements, and that’s assuming every penny went into the state system.

Rather than attacking private education with this populist policy, perhaps they would do better to focus their attentions on the billions of pounds the government lose to fraud each year - many more billions than any perceived amount a VAT levy on schools would bring.

@Itsoktogiveup - I agree with you. However, I would still never vote Tory - probably Lib Dem this time then.

From an equality perspective removing charitable status seems like a good idea. There are several factors to consider though. This was in the TES a year ago. I don’t know up to date calculations.
Financial consultants Baines Cutler estimates Labour’s VAT policy could cost approximately £415 million in its fifth year and will not supply additional money for spending pledges made during an election campaign.

I expect small private schools will close and jobs will be lost. Parents at the lower end of affording school fees will perhaps have to transfer pupils to the creaking state system.

How will this improve the education of those already in the state system? I’m guessing that these parents will be savvy to the education system. If they do not already live near a “good/outstanding” state school they soon will. State education is not equal for all. Near me is a state primary that has been “inadequate” for at least 5 years, A state school half a mile up the street is “good”. House prices vary dramatically depending on which school catchment area you live in. If you can afford it you can get a good state education.

If you can afford to live near to an outstanding school you can really relax or can you? Here private schools work a longer school day 8-30 to 4.15 with a lot of after school clubs expected of the pupils, making it a 5.15 then an hour of homework. My local secondary starts at 8.40 and finishes at 2.50 for lots of pupils. That’s before the primary school finishes! Rant over!

I’m guessing that these parents will be savvy to the education system. If they do not already live near a “good/outstanding” state school they soon will. State education is not equal for all. Near me is a state primary that has been “inadequate” for at least 5 years, A state school half a mile up the street is “good”. House prices vary dramatically depending on which school catchment area you live in. If you can afford it you can get a good state education.

This aspect of unfairness doesn’t seem to bother those who wish to abolish private education - I don’t know why.

I've not read all 438+ posts but on all these full, oversubscribed schools, is that actually the case in your area? Because it's not the problem here. My DS1 is in Year 11 coming up to GCSEs, and his was the last bulge year in this part of north London. Some schools are more popular than others, but a lot of schools are having to downsize eg from 2 classes a year to 1. Patterns may be different elsewhere but birthrates are really variable.

Funding state schools properly is a matter of policy and choices, and this isn't just about more money, it's about how it's spent. For example, the government has promoted the building of "free schools" and academies and said that local authorities can't actually set up new schools themselves, and this competition creates havoc with school places. I'm a primary school governor and teh school needs to be able to match staffing and student numbers up. 40 kids is too many for one class but while two classes of 20 might sound good, the kids will need two class teachers, not 1.33333 teachers, also classroom assistants.

As for SEND provision, if mainstream schools don't get the extra funding needed, and the local authority can't develop, plan etc its own new provision but is dependent on market solutions, there are obviously new problems. Last year there was a big dispute around the pay and conditions of staff at a special school in a neighbouring borough which has lots of kids from my borough paid for by the local authority. Basically this school is run as part of a chain by a large private company which also runs other schools around the country - their treatment of staff is not good and nor is the quality of education and support received by students. They charge local authorities several times the cost of the places available in local authorities' own provision, but local authorities' ability to develop their provision is restricted by law as well as underfunding. This is straining the whole system.

So I support removing charitable status from private schools but I also think that reforms need to go further in terms of the ability to plan school places and other provision according to needs (and the supporting structures). At the moment local authorities have the responsibility to fulfil certain duties only without the power to do so properly in some cases. For example, that every student has a school place, and that special needs are met, obviously both important things, but difficult to do if there's lots of competition for students who are going to get good grades but little interest in difficult students or those somewhere in the middle.

I think it’s pretty despicable to attack children’s education in an effort to worsen class tensions in order to seize power.

😂

'attack children's education' aka 'develop education policy'

'seize power' aka 'win an election'

Both completely standard for all major political parties in the UK

I think it's a bit more complex:
There is no educational policy. There is no plan to improve the education in inadequate state schools. There is no plan to support children failing education because they don't / didn't have enough nutrition or a safe home. There is no intention to listen to headteachers. That's why it's divisive populism that does good to no one.
All parties want to win elections. You can win it on fact-based vision or on mythical populism. It is depressing to see the other party go the - what you called - standard route.

@Springium22

The schools themselves are responsible for improving! Why do you think head teachers are paid £100,000 pa in a larger school? They buy in all sorts of advice and are supposed to be education experts and professionals. Some are useless.

The government doesn’t micro manage schools. The Governors set the ethos and improvement strategy. They can be replaced with experienced governors. Heads can be replaced.

The strategy of school improvement is inspection. At least you now know a school is inadequate. After 5 years, why is it not a “new” school? Or is the management still crap? It’s easy to blame politicians, but professionals need to do better too.

Are the schools setting up their budgets? Can they increase it? Can they make inflation adjustment to teachers' pay ?

If the schools manage themselves and not the government, then the government should stay silent on private schools. Why don't they?

@Andante57

Most schools that really don't perform well are in areas of poverty and deprivation - the fraction of parents who can afford to "escape" these schools by going private is tiny. And why should who can't "escape" subsidise those who can?

To be honest I'm now pretty cynical about this idea prevalent on Mumsnet that people are only using private because they have no choice except that or terrible state schools. From memory I think eight of the children in my daughter's class at primary went private for secondary - none of the state secondaries open to them were less than reasonable - one or two were excellent by any measure. If they took the choice to go private it certainly wasn't because of "necessity" and certainly didn't merit any taxpayer support.

Are you seriously saying the current party in power was elected on 'fact based vision' and not 'mythical populism'?!

Or that their insistence on taking schools out of LA control and forming academies was a 'fact based vision' and not 'mythical populism'?!

I'm not at all suggesting the current party was elected on fact-based policy.
I had hopes the other party could

This comes up a lot the idea that you the taxpayer are supporting the private school user.

We all pay tax for schools and some opt out, you are not supporting them but the people who opt out are still contributing by tax.

Some countries do tax rebates but I wouldn’t do that.

HPFA - which comment of mine were you referring to?
In my last post I agreed with another poster that houses will be more expensive in the catchment area of very good state schools therefore richer people will be at an advantage as they will be able to afford these more expensive houses.
I wondered why those who objected to private education didn’t also object to this.

A lot of people do support the idea of lotteries for popular schools.

But I think there can also be a chicken and egg about it. A school near an expensive area will often have higher results because of the children who attend - it doesn't make it a better school.

I'm not particularly against private schools - there would be loads of problems with a ban - I've just ceased to believe that the motive behind the choice of them is state schools being inadequate in the vast majority of cases.

People shop at Waitrose not because Tesco is inadequate.
As for schools, it's just sometimes more convenient to use private school provision (if you have money). You decide where to apply; you are much better informed about what your dc progress. It's just a service for which you pay extra, a lot. In some London areas there are more private schools than state, so you kinda choose to send your dc to a local school. Of course, only if you have a lot of money.