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)

According to friends who are teachers the degree of paperwork is frustrating - one said that she spends more time evidencing the support she gives a pupil than in actually supporting a pupil!

But equally, they get a buzz from being able to make a difference - with the pupil who struggles with learning or behaviour as well as the high achiever

Proper resourcing to address the issues that result in children being unable to learn.

Going back to original point re class sizes decreasing due to population decline. I still think there’s an opportunity here to capitalise on lower state numbers by keeping spending at same level.

By default this would increase per pupil which could go to resources.

By avoiding taking students from private sector across to state you could make improvements.

Number of things:

1. Hire a decent headteacher

2. Give them the ability to sack a load of staff - when I looked round and asked questions, half the staff appeared to be waiting it out till retirement and there was very much an attitude of 'this is how we do things here' and zero flexibility. The London schools we looked at all had young, enthusiastic staff who seemed excited about teaching and were going the extra mile.

3. Find ways to attracting parents who are interested in their child's education - quite a few of the ones I spoke to locally knew that was the nearest school and so didn't even bother going to look round.

And it can be done - DD's current school was one of the worst in England when the current HT took over and he's worked very hard to make the changes that will attract parents like me to the school. It's now one of the most over-subscribed in England.

Yes, it would probably improve if parents like me decided to send our children there, but for me, DD getting the best education possible for her was far more important than any benefit my being THAT parent might have on the school overall.

Both DH and I did many, many years as governors at primary level so I don't feel too guilty about finding out how to play the system for secondary.

Thanks for answer. Makes sense

Hire a decent head. Unfortunately tricky unless you want a strict one who just about silence and uniforms.

Move on teachers? They usually went to retire and then there’s no replacements. Double edged sword, sadly,

Attracting engaged parents? How? Schools cannot select parents. If you serve some areas in the country you cannot oust the locals for bussed in super parents.

I was a governor for 20 years at 3 schools. I would never ever game anything to my advantage.

Looks like the thread has moved on a bit. I grew up in an area where there was an element of postcode lottery (Brighton and Hove). It created a lot of anxiety among the parents - partly because the way B&H is laid out meant children had to get a bus into the centre then get another one out. As a result some surprising people chose to go private for senior school.

Re what people want when they go private - it isn’t necessarily a guarantee that their children will get straight A*s in their A levels. There was a thread a little while ago where the OP’s niece had started at an independent senior school and the OP was a bit taken aback at how full her days were (and, to some extent, her weekends). This can be really attractive to working parents - plus no ferrying the children around to various activities as they do them in school.

There are ways to attract the engaged parents who push their kids like expensive blazers, lots of discipline etc.
Engaged parents near me got together to lobby for a new boys school, lovely area, grounds etc and the typical expensive blazer… pick a leafy area and enforce discipline standards, late marks, detentions- puts off the lazy parent. Very well known trick in the state sector.

Parents who value education will always find ways and why punish them for that? They are providing the next tax paying generation. It is a good thing whether private school or sharp elbowed state school parent. Plus our unis are more than happy to take rich overseas students anyway (don’t seem to care about private school there) so there is huge hypocrisy anyway. Plus we are always happy to poach well educated economic migrants too. So we should always aim for the highest possible standards whether state or independent.

My concern is for the kids already in the private system and for women who have put career above children and often choose private with wrap around/extra curricular for that reason. Nobody is going to be counting reduced tax take from women if the policy goes through and I know from a number of colleagues that they would drop hours if they had to ferry DC to clubs etc. One of the female partners I work for sent her DC to boarding schools and on every school trip etc because she works too much herself. I chose state and to be around for my 4DC by working reduced hours but there will be more women choosing what I did if they can’t outsource reliably. And yes I do have to ferry my lot around to sports clubs despite London buses

I thought schools were charities because the purpose is education, and the fees go to pay for what is entailed - when a school is not a ‘for profit’ company in other words.

The city day schools I know of near me charge as little as they can so that people have a better chance of being able to afford them, and the fees go towards teachers’s salaries, books, equipment, buildings and bursaries. While some parents easily afford the fees, others give up a lot to try to do so.
They also provide a very good education, which benefits the country in the long run.

The parents who send their children to schools like these do not get any voucher for what would have been spent by the state on them. The parents are paying twice, once through taxes then the fees.

Some of the parents in middle class areas who send their children to the state schools in those areas have as much money, or more, than the cohorts of stretched parents trying to pay for private schools with everything they’ve got. The parents saving money by sending their children to state schools are able to plough money into more expensive houses with possible future large tax free profits to come, as well as into general savings and good pensions.

So I see the idea of removing the charitable status as negative. Also, if it would mean more children, whose parents can no longer afford private school places, would need state funded places, perhaps the expected income stream will not be all that has been predicted.

Do nurseries have charitable status I wonder? Some may be profitable companies.

Do universities have charitable status?

I'm all for removing the tax break for this.

I thought schools were charities because the purpose is education, and the fees go to pay for what is entailed - when a school is not a ‘for profit’ company in other words.

It was, back in the day before universal state education.

Today there are schools set up in that era that cater to the wealthy and socially exclusive in order to maintain privilege.

Or to benefit shareholders.

All of the 'public' schools were set up in an era where the wealthy employed tutors for their children. The only way the sons of people unable to afford a tutor could get an education was to win a place in a school to educate the deserving 'public' (i.e. relatively poor) boys.

During the 19th century going to school (of the right sort) became the default instead of tutors. The 'public' schools became enclaves of the wealthy and elite. And the state gradually emerged to provide universal, free education.

The idea that simply providing education, no matter how exclusive and expensive, is a charitable objective pre-dates the provision of universal state education, and should be removed for all stages of mainstream education where the state has a legal obligation to provide education.

This is limited to primary and secondary education, and excludes pre-school and tertiary education.

It's not that difficult - mainstream primary or secondary education? The state is obliged to provide, so alternative provision is parental choice and not charitable.

Provision for SEN is a grey area as the state is still obliged to provide, but if 90% of fees are met by an LA as part of an EHCP I would see that as having a public benefit and be charitable.

Increasing the cost of independent schooling will make them more exclusive and even more exclusive clubs. This will actually be welcomed by a cohort of parents. We all know that the extra funds raised will just go into the black hole and make no difference to the state sector. Meanwhile, this will re-enforce the elite networking and undermine the Corbynista agenda behind it.

😂😂😂

Not a Corbynista! I've never joined a political party.

But happy to see unearned privilege chipped away at. I think there are lots of educational benefits to being educated alongside kids from very different backgrounds, even if it is uncomfortable.

And even if your parents don't get an opportunity, unlike @Xenia, of mixing with (while singing Bach) 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

It won't be welcomed by parents who need to use independent specialist provision. And of course some pupils at those will be council placements, so that's an increase to council tax (at present it's cheaper to fund individual pupils when absolutely cornered in to it than to provide specialist capacity for which requirement may be highly variable)

The bill for CEA for forces and qualifying OGD families would go up too

OhCrumbsWhereNow· 30/11/2022 20:39

“Zampa · 30/11/2022 20:34
This study has been massively debunked. Please read the thread I posted from New Statesman which shows up the ISC report for what it is - private school propaganda.”

"Massively debunked" is rather an overstatement there - "disagrees with" would be more accurate. And let's not forget that the New Statesman has its own bias and propaganda slant.

Re: The New Statesman article having its own bias and propaganda slant, I agree. I found the description “poor dears” in the paragraph below distasteful:

The more significant policy is VAT on fees. This could bring in around £1.5bn, taking account of the VAT schools would be able to reclaim if they were charging it to parents. Labour wants to spend this on various policies to support the state sector. The Mail claims it would actually cost the government £400m because so many pupils would be “forced” (poor dears) into the state sector.
www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/11/daily-mail-private-schools-education-class-labour

As I posted, there is a difference between charitable status for schools providing mainstream primary or secondary education, and those meeting SEN that cannot be accommodated in mainstream settings.

But the idea that all provision of education is charitable pre-dates universal state education.

If state education isn't good enough for your children (SEN aside) why is it good enough for other children?

Why don't you campaign for better investment for all, instead of buying your way out?

Surely you can do both?

I chose state for my child - but did huge amounts of research and found out about things like music scholarships that bypass the distance criteria etc several years in advance so we had time to prepare.

State was more than good enough for my child - but my local option weren't.

The other thing I have learnt is that you can't easily change anything at secondary level. The one 5 minute slot annually with a subject teacher isn't even enough to cover more than the absolute basics.

Oh course it is very biased. And yes the person writing there has an issue with the dc not far from similar comments on mn

Plus our unis are more than happy to take rich overseas students anyway (don’t seem to care about private school there) so there is huge hypocrisy anyway.

Yes it’s extremely hypocritical since given the substantial fees charged, most students from overseas will be from a rich family (unless they get funds from elsewhere? apart from Rhodes scholarships do other countries’ governments or charities pay for students to come to UK universities?).

There isn’t a clear cut difference, there are the specialist independents that are usually privately run non charity and charge a small fortune in fees, usually paid by the la as out of the reach of virtually all parents but then there are a lot of fairly cheap “mainstream” specialists that tend to get a lot of children with Sen due to being small and more nurturing than your typical state mainstream. Pupils in these schools may be funded through ehcps or privately funded by parents if the parents haven’t tried or fought to get an ehcp and decided just to pay themselves. Near us there are some of these small private schools with fees of around £2 to £3k a term, if these end up closing such that Sen children are pushed into the specialist independent sector then fees are more like £60k to £100k a year, very few parents can afford these fees so the la will end up picking up the tab if no other schools can meet needs

What I don’t get is if you are a church (which is a charity) you can set up a school and fund it and choose who goes there but get a state subsidy while independent schools, which generally don’t refuse to educate people based on their religious beliefs and people turn around and want to tax it.

Couldn’t agree more. Faith schools can fund a small percentage of capital costs and then get state funding for everything else, but can openly discriminate based on religion. Apparently 16% of state funded places are allocated based on religion. Why more people aren’t complaining about this is a mystery. Lots of people are complaining about the “unfair” private system which 7% of pupils use and which is (on the whole) privately funded, and yet they are perfectly happy with the state funding more than double that number at faith schools.

The ludicrous social engineering that has gone on in this country in the last 40 years through the regulation of secondary schools has obviously failed. It’s made it no less unequal. People find a way to find their preferred group for their DC. You can’t stop it. How about just letting people be? Many countries actually fund private schools to keep people interested in paying taxes to fund the state system. Once you completely divorce those that pay a lot of the tax from those getting the benefits, the system fails.

And you’ve got no option but to pretend that their sky God is real if your local comprehensive is failing. Get ready to kiss the vicar’s behind for 10 years and bake and sell cakes