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)

And I don't know why people would support an idea of lottery to send your child to school - it's just even less control for the parents in choosing the school. Would they support lotteries for other services - GPs, hospitals?

“A lot of people do support the idea of lotteries for popular schools.”
Really! I am surprised. The Green Party used to support this type of idea in areas where schools were “unsuccessful”. They suggested that, in certain areas pupils should be bussed so catchment areas had a more even mix. Some schools have tried entrance tests and a percentage of least, middle and more able were selected so schools could have a balanced catchment. From memory 40, 60, 40. Some of the cleverest children would be therefore be excluded from perceived “better” schools and might have to attend a school needing improvement because of the quotas. The thought was that, over time, as those unsuccessful schools improved and parents become more confident in the education they offered it would become unnecessary to continue to bus children. I think this was more a hope than what would actually happen.

From what I’ve read I have decided that money can buy you a good education whether it be private or state. This is the problem for people without financial means and many of their children are at a disadvantage from which it is difficult to recover. We have educational segregation in private and state schools.

The reason I would support leaving well alone for now is, from my own experience, the education children get at a good private school goes way beyond any state school in terms of homework, expectations, length of school day, extra curricular activities etc. They are the standard for which we should aim. Not just their results (because they are not average schools). Let’s emulate the ethos and work ethic and see what happens. Another rant over.

The thing that is really changing private schools is the university admissions process. There are only so many UK privately educated kids who will get in to the US uni’s. Parents are going to stop paying for something that no longer achieves the guarantees that it used to. Watch as the birth rate drops what happens. Most privates already started it. Increased fees, larger classes, less subject choice.

The reason I would support leaving well alone for now is, from my own experience, the education children get at a good private school goes way beyond any state school in terms of homework, expectations, length of school day, extra curricular activities etc. They are the standard for which we should aim.

I disagree, except potentially for extra-curricular activities, although good state schools do provide a wide and numerous range of extra-curriculars.

More homework and longer days (I assume that is what you regards as the 'standard we should aim for') are not necessarily best for every child. Some thrive on a long, strict regime, others don't.

DD's mental health would spiral downwards. The expectation from her state school is that she does her best, and she does. But she needs the time away from school in order to achieve her best in school. Her best friend, by contrast, thrives on more and challenging academic work. Luckily their excellent state school focusses on what is best for each pupil, rather than expecting their pupils to conform to a pre-set idea of what should' be best for all pupils.

I have not noticed few subject choice in my children's private schools. In fact the range of traditional A levels continues and thankfully none of the software weak more modern subjects are pushed too heavily in the private sector at the relatively academic day private schools my children attended.

Nor have those schools noticed children not getting into universities as much. Eg my daughter found it harder to get into Bristol than her twin brothers 13 years' later did simply because the state changed the rules to allow uncapped numbers for courses for people with higher grades (as long as univserities had bed spaces and lecture hall spaces) so one son had double the number on the identical course at Bristol and I imagine it was easier to get in as a result although they got the same A level grades so perhaps it remained the same.

Also I am not convinced private school parents pay fees to obtain better A level grades. I just wanted a school selecting by an exam at 11+ and single sex and a few other things.

Interesting piont above saying EU law does not allow VAT on education and therefore because of Brexit we are now free to levy VAT on education if we wish and I presume could pick and choose - none on day nurseries or nursery schools or private schools up to age 4 say and none on university fees or adult education but on charitable and non charitable other full time schools whehter religious or sports or arts or otherwise? It is ceratinly going to be complicated given there are free state boarding schools where there presumably would not be VAT On the charge you pay for the boarding element. So would eg Eton had VAT on the education part of the fees but not on the boarding part?

Also I am not convinced private school parents pay fees to obtain better A level grades. I just wanted a school selecting by an exam at 11+ and single sex and a few other things.

Why did you want those things?

What benefit did you see, unless it meant a 'better' education and therefore better grades?

You cannot buy grades.
You can buy a better process, i.e - you will know better what your dc struggles with and if/when they need any help. You can (and many do) the same for children in state schools, but it requires more parental time and effort. So you buy this service in a good private school.

Sigma 33 it seems you are assuming that good private schools do not cater for these differences in learning. Well-being is also a concept at these schools. Pupils choose clubs after school has finished. They are homework club, various sports clubs which are mandatory if you are in a team, music clubs mandatory if you are in orchestra or choir, chess club, instrument practice, reading club, singing, dance and a safe place to wait for collection by parents which are optional. The list is endless. “More homework” mean an hour a day. “ The longer day” means not finishing at 2.50pm as secondary schools do here. Their standard day is 4.15 or 5.15 after clubs. My children all academically different with different learning styles and motivation and talents would not have been harmed mentally or educationally if this had been on offer at their state schools.

Sigma33 · Today 14:48
[me]
"Also I am not convinced private school parents pay fees to obtain better A level grades. I just wanted a school selecting by an exam at 11+ and single sex and a few other things.

Why did you want those things?

What benefit did you see, unless it meant a 'better' education and therefore better grades?"

Very good questions.

1. Why did I want single sex schooling? (i) It is what I had in a fee paying school. (ii) Secondly, if the opposite sex is not around at school as a teenager you are more likely to get on with work and subjects will not become something boys or only girls do. For example we do a lot of musi in our family and my children's father is an organist and music teacher - he finds it is much easier to get 11 and 12 year old boys in a school choir if there are no girls int he school (and that is just one of many reasons. (iii) Also there is less chance of early sex (unless I suppose you are gay) if the opposite sex is not in the school. none of my children had boyfriends or girl friends (and nor did I) until university stage.
2. I think it is wanting different, not necessarily better although I do see the good private schools as better than state schools too.
3. On wanting children in an academically selective school even at primary level it is about wanting everyone in the class to be of a similar academic standard so ideas spark off each other and in general there is much less disruption in class as no one is particularly struggling to keep up.
4. Better is not just better grades. It is better classical music. Better parents' choirs where parents can sight sing and sing Bach (I am not saying state schools don't have that of course); other parents of similar income and professional jobs; school grounds with lakes and fields where you can have lovely events for parents in a gorgeous environment.
5. Perhaps this one is top of the list - the formation of the teenager into the adult to come from accent to general knowledge, resilience, sports, exposure to a vast choice of clubs so that even if just one hobby is theirs for life they have it. Again I am not saying state schools don't have after school clubs but those things were easier to find in the private sector here in SE England. it is about feeling a buyer of a service as a parent, having power, not being an object the state renders unto, but instead capitalism at its best etc etc

@Xenia Gosh, I chose ds's non-selective independent school because they get 100% of pupils through gcse English and Maths every year.

Because vicious bullies get one warning and then are asked to leave, meaning other children are generally safe.

Because they offered a choice of modern languages which the local comp could not.

Because class sizes are smaller, their standards are higher & kinder, and the children seem much happier.

Accent, opportunities for sex and garden parties didn't cross my mind 😀

You're funny @Xenia! DD goes to an all-girls school, and I assure you plenty of girls have boyfriends and spend half an hour after school every day sucking each others tonsils out at the bus stop!

And my experience is that I (and DD) have far greater rights in a state school which is not allowed to discriminate, while I know parents/children who have been thrown out of private schools if they failed to conform. Buyers don'talways have the upper hand, especially if they might put off other buyers by having SEN, dark skin or anything else...

Yes, it does seem that social selection is an important element of @Xenia 's choices...

The only proven advantage of single-sex schooling for girls is that they are more likely to choose to study STEM subjects in that environment than they are in a mixed school. Most of the rest is simple parental prejudice, rarely supported by any evidence or data.

For example, all the pedagogical evidence suggest that parents vastly over-estimate the benefits of small class sizes (SEN notwithstanding), especially at secondary level. The biggest factor – by a margin – behind educational achievement is great teaching. Do parents really believe the private sector has a monopoly on better teachers? If so, the data would suggest they are wrong.

Extra-curricular is probably better provided for within private schools, but parents can always access this outside school anyway – sports clubs, dance classes, gyms, stage schools, swimming pools, chess clubs etc are all widely available.

I never quite understand the great teaching is more important than class size thing. Surely a teacher finds it easier to be great with a third less stuff to do in terms of report writing, people management, parent enquiries and so.

I see a rubbish teacher in a small class is worse than a good teacher in a big class, i just think more teachers could be good in smaller classes.

@Spendonsend you are talking about benefits to the teacher, primarily. And you may have a point. The benefits to the children, however, aren't significant, perhaps because a great teacher doesn't find it any harder to teach 30 children than 20.

I'm not a teacher, never have been. I'm coming at this from the direction of an educational researcher (which I have been) and this is what the data shows, across many studies, across many years, across many countries. It's pretty robust, evidentially speaking.

I was thinking of it from a place of a huge teacher shortage where workload and behaviour are the main reasons people leave, so small classes would benefit the children as less teachers would leave so they'd stand more chance of having a maths teacher with a maths degree.

@Xenia you are funny! I applaud your honesty though.

DD's state school has no problem with teacher recruitment or retention. The same for many, many state schools.

Of course, there are areas where that isn't the case, but in general it isn't the case for state schools, so not much of an argument for private schooling.

Teachers in state schools are far more scrutinised (and in good schools mentored) than in private schools, so more likely to develop and improve.

Indeed there is another recent thread where parents are complaining about lottery entry schools.

My DD attends a state comprehensive with lottery entry (she got a music place so not via the lottery) and children come from right across London and well beyond.

Plenty of complaints from local parents that you can live opposite and still not get a place.

I know from many past threads on here that I'm in a tiny minority who is happy for my DC to travel a long way for the right school. Most people want a school on their doorstep, so there would be huge complaints if that system was universal,

Removing private schools (as some wish to do) would just result in postcodes with very skewed demographics and people paying for education via housing (which would also provide a nice tangible asset for those lucky few at the end too).

But of course can't compete with private in providing other parents of similar income and professional jobs; school grounds with lakes and fields where you can have lovely events for parents in a gorgeous environment.

You do have to pay for that.

Not necessarily. All the state schools in our London borough are Good or Outstanding according to OFSTED. There are pockets of deprivation, and some wealthy areas. But as the LA has to provide a school place, whichever you are allocated will be a good standard.

One or other might be a better 'fit' for you child's specific interests/needs, but there is no postcode lottery or concentration of high house values in specific postcodes.

Which was a relief as a parent - it takes the pressure off when there is a minimal difference between any of your choices of school places, and even the worst case scenario is basically a good school.

Christ loads of the kids at my boys’ private school are on bursaries and even more have parents who work there so get fee reduction. We will still have ours there if they put the fees up anyway.

That's fine in London, but not the case in many other parts of the country. Where we live there is a high percentage who either go private or find another way (as we did) to actively avoid the local 'needs improvement' option. There is a 'good' option if you are happy to travel over an hour... not everyone is.

We have excellent state here if you are lucky enough to be close by.

But what would improve these we’ll avoid them schools do you think? It sounds like class sizes won’t do much due to pp