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)

JassyRadlett · Today 12:43
This Sutton Trust report has so other models of fairer admissions.

I realise I asked for any evidence on the wider social impacts of private dentistry/healthcare earlier (though honestly im not automatically against VAT on them either, I'd just be keen to see evidence of benefit/disbenefit first) without providing any evidence on the wider impact of private education. I sort of assumed most people were aware as there's loads out there, but it was still rude of me.

This IFS report provides some interesting data.

Thank you for the Sutton Trust link and this report. I just started to read the Sutton Trust one. It is interesting to see that their research shows massive segregation - unequal and unfair divisions - in state education based on class and family wealth.

Holier than thou attitudes by parents who have free good schools to go are misplaced.

It shows imo the problem of unequal chances in life are very unlikely to be solved by charging private schools vat. It would probably just be used in place of some existing funding too which would then be quietly withdrawn.

Also, given that there is a cross -over of the demographic that goes to successful academies, comprehensives, grammar schools and those who go to city day schools, if a lot of the fee paying ones swop over following a hike in fees, the problem could be more exaggerated.

But I haven’t read the Sutton Trust solution yet so could be speaking out of turn.

People want their children well educated. They want them to be in undisrupted classrooms, with high expectations, and where the peer pressure does not say it’s uncool to work. Sometimes they want the option of same sex education too. They want extra curricular activities to help children develop their potential beyond the academic. Excellent education, not just get-by version, is a high priority for many parents.

The idea some people seem to have that private schools are businesses seems confusing. The ones I know of are not, (but perhaps others are?).

The idea that middle class parents are ‘sharp elbowed’ is extraordinary. Since when does wanting your child to be educated mean you want to push another child out of the way and want to hurt that child?

People say they want parent power entering the state system. But if those parents were to complain or question the standards they’d be called ‘pushy’.

The other idea on here is that you want your child to know a network of influential people. That network exists where there are professional parents whether state or private. It is up to the heads of school to garner their support.

Excellent points!

You'll notice I asked for any evidence people were aware of in the impact on equality and opportunity for those who don't use them - that goes beyond 'presumably' and actually looks at the benefits and disbenefits at a whole-of-society level.

Is the negative impact of a two-tier health system offset by reducing pressure on that finite system, for example - there isn't an equivalent in education where someone's education is delayed for two years because there's no space.

We know that the economy is currently significantly affected by high levels of ill-health - but does the private system make it worse? Is it drawing the workforce away from the public sector, or creating other issues? I honestly don't know, which is why I'd be really keen to learn more about it from authoritative sources.

There's a good body of evidence on those impacts for private education. I was wondering whether there was anything similar on private healthcare on dentistry, as people were drawing parallels and I'm curious to learn whether it's a true comparison. Everyone has their own gut feelings and biases, that's why actual evidence is useful.

@Andante57 but if you are really unwell or need A&E you are always going to want to be treated by NHS doctors in an NHS hospital picked up by an state run ambulance service, because that is where the groundbreaking, life saving stuff happens. Same in education IMHO.

Most of the people using private healthcare and private education have already been taxed 40 if not 45 per cent. So these would just be additional stealth taxes on those persons.
It is a well known fact that many consultants working privately also work for the NHS and that therefore, there is competition. So if you pay, you bypass the NHS waiting lists. In the City of London all my colleagues now happily pay 50 pounds to see a private GP because it means they can actually get more work down during the day (be more productive, pay more tax). This is especially the case post Covid - when it has become very difficult to get a GP appointment. There is nothing wrong with people paying, it shouldn’t be taxed additionally.
As regards education, we should really be comparing to other similar countries and asking if more children here are privately educated or not. If the U.K. is fairly average it is fine.
People who value health and education more than eg luxury goods should be applauded and not vice versa. Those former things should not be taxed like luxury goods because those persons and children being healthy and well educated benefits the whole of society in the long run.
If you overtax the self made hard worker who “made” it those persons can and do up sticks to other countries when young enough. There is a tipping point. The U.K. has a lot of problems. Taxing middle class higher earners even more is not the solution. Making big business fairer and more employee friendly towards the lowest earners is where the problem currently lies in the U.K. Government shouldn’t have to be subsidising so much of the population to survive- that is where the real issue lies.

People who pay for private healthcare are essentially paying to jump the queue (ie the NHS waiting list). You are quite likely to have the same surgeon, just at a time which is sooner and more convenient for you.

Whether you believe this is acceptable or not is going to vary from person to person, and we will all have our own individual views on it. But let's at least be honest about it – that, to a large degree, is what people are paying for.

As @Falafe says, the NHS is almost always going to be the best option for emergency care, it is superb at that. If you're really ill (not 'feeling' really ill but actually diagnosed by an expert as being really ill), the NHS is usually excellent.

Does my being in good health and well educated benefit the whole of society? I'm not sure, I'd want to dig a lot deeper into that assertion. On what basis do you say that @Aleaiactaest?

@Aleaiactaest the difference between private education here and in other countries has historically been the societal status it conferred on its bearers which isn't as pronounced elsewhere. This is due to a deeply entrenched class system not seen to such a degree in other similar national.
However the twofold effect of having recently had the worst politicians in living memory leading our country and increasingly sophisticated university admissions mean that no longer can anyone pretend that privately educated people are a) 'better' or b) more intelligent than those educated in state schools.

nations

@thing47- if you are working and paying taxes and have produced “2,5” well educated kids who are also going to contribute etc then yes it does benefit society as a whole. On a population level.

Having a healthy pregnancy, eating well, not drinking too much/not smoking, being polite and civil and paying taxes and pushing your children in the right way etc benefits the whole of society in the long run.

We have been lucky to not have to use private schools nor private health care but if we had, it would have been because we had not been lucky with our health and local schools. I applaud anyone who chooses to pay for education over eg luxury holidays abroad, luxury German cars etc. plenty of people make those choices. Plenty of people decide to buy investment properties etc instead of education as well. Have seen it in my group of friends.

Yeah, I hate the phrase “sharp elbowed”. It’s up there with “spoon feeding”. Among my friends, those who are really anti private schools (because the children in them are “privileged”) are extremely middle class people whose children go to great state schools (the ones others really want) and whose children have access to all sorts of activities.

I have a very posh Indian friend who is absolutely bemused by the inverted snobbery around education in the UK. She just can’t understand it.

I certainly agree with that.Also I always say the one thing that can never been taken from my children by anyone is their education so paying for their education a my parents did with us from 4 - 18 and indeed support at university is one of the things I most wanted to do for my children. I paid for 5 at day private schools in the SE. Last year alone the twins at university stage cost me £50k out if income taxed highly already so I have certainly chosen to spend a lot of money on the whole thing, but there is not much else on which I would want to spend it. (I have always helped each child buy a first property and after that they are on their own).

So because they're paying tax into the system? That's a reasonable argument.

All the rest of it though is just your personal opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong, I value education over cars too, but it's opinion, not data. You're stating it as if it's axiomatic and, well, it isn't. I'd want to see some actual evidence before I accepted it verbatim.

Nobody has answered the question why people keep blaming Eton College for Cameron and Boris Johnson, but not Oxford University? Surely if it is such a great university and course (PPE) they could have undone any harm /entrenched privilege further entrenched by a school?

I think we need to ask the question of what type of person enters politics and why? I think we need to make sure people from all walks of life become politicians and are properly and fairly remunerated in what is quite a challenging job. And we also need to ask the question of what role the media plays in politics and political opinion. What connections in media are the current politicians able to tap into due to their inherent privilege?
I am not anti monarchy because I believe in the value of history, symbolism and tradition, but I really think we cannot blame a class system and a general inequality in society on the vast majority of independent schools in this country.

Agree using good state and assuming a moral good doesn’t figure when some state can be as difficult to get into as private. Plus I’ve seen a fair few posts championing equality but then saying they’ve used private anyway. Not really sure how they square that one.

Caring about education isn’t bad. If every parent felt the same and was in ‘sharp elbow’ category every school would benefit. Since class sizes seem not to matter so much. It’s the anti learning attitudes people want to avoid.

Yes, thank goodness for this post. I'm always up for a debate on what I feel and my opinions but public policy and where the tax burden lies should be based on facts not feelings.

Nobody has answered the question why people keep blaming Eton College for Cameron and Boris Johnson, but not Oxford University? Surely if it is such a great university and course (PPE) they could have undone any harm /entrenched privilege further entrenched by a school?

Yes. Also, are the Eton educated former Labour MPS Tam Dalyell and Mark Fisher equally despised? Or Jonathon Porritt of Friends of the Earth, or Patrick Hennessy, Deputy Director of Communications for the Labour Party?
If any Etonians hitch their star to any left or leftish organisation then no doubt their Eton past is forgiven.

The things you list in second para do benefit society. Plus it’s better to bring people up rather than erode standards.

Why do they though?

Having a healthy pregnancy benefits mother and baby but is it a benefit to society as a whole? Not drinking too much and not smoking benefit your health but it's arguable that they benefit society – as drinkers and smokers pay more in tax you could argue the opposite… Being polite and civil may be a 'good thing' in general terms, I certainly wouldn't disagree with that, but of benefit to society? that's a big claim. So I say again, where's the evidence?

I don’t think I’ve seen an argument for lower population health and lower educational standards on mn before, seems topsy turvy territory to me, but quick google brings BMA statement

‘Poor population health is not just bad for the individuals affected. It impacts adversely on national productivity and prosperity, and increases pressures on health services’

’The foundations of good health start before birth and in the early years of life. Good early health trajectories require policies that drive good maternal and parental physical and mental health, value and incentivise parenting, promote good child development, and address wider issues such as poverty. Once established, these health trajectories require reinforcement at critical stages throughout the life-course.’

’Failure to make population health a priority leads to growing pressures on the NHS. For example, the care of people living with often preventable, long-term conditions makes up around 50% of GP appointments and 70% of hospital days.’

www.bma.org.uk/what-we-do/population-health/addressing-social-determinants-that-influence-health/valuing-health-why-prioritising-population-health-is-essential-to-prosperity

I’m not surprised by this and by school age you’ll have disparity that even a lottery system would find difficult to address

Parental attitude is a key factor that contributes to driving decisions around education

@Barbadossunset
Because that is how our country works. I have friends who put their old private school on their Facebook profile but not their university. In America you never talk about what school you went to but which university you went to (although they are called schools!) That is why (some)people pay for fee paying education here. They are buying in to a brand that their child can then use to further themselves (although not very easily anymore now that university admissions and job applications take a very different stance on the old club network I know.) I went to private school and I meet people all the time who accept me whole heartedly the moment I went to XXX school. Somehow the fact I went to xxx school makes them think I must be ok, they wouldn't know if I have a criminal record or am abusive, all that matters is that I went to xxx school so I must be an ok sort. Which makes me look down on them massively, not that I would let them know that, I just play along for an easy life and go home feeling sad that they take such a narrow minded view of the world that they think membership to that tribe means such a lot. Having been to xxxx school can hide all manner of sins.

That should read 'the moment that they know that I went to xx school..'

I don’t think I’ve seen an argument for lower population health and lower educational standards on mn before, seems topsy turvy territory to me, but quick google brings BMA statement.

That's something of a straw man. That sort of dishonest argument only serves to make your own argument look weak - unless you can quote where someone has said 'I want worse health/education outcomes for the country.'

As I think you know, it's a question of whether private access for the most privileged actually leads to the optimum outcome for society as a whole, or whether privileged access for the richest in fact entrenches lower outcomes overall - so whether private healthcare leads to better or worse health, equality and economic outcomes overall, and the same for private schools - are overall educational standards and life outcomes enhanced or reduced by 7% being privately educated?

And then you use the evidence in answer to those questions inform your fiscal and other public policy.

To be clear I’m responding to this post re drinkers etc paying tax and there being low benefits from improving population health

Hence BMA article arguing well for benefits of higher population health.

Anyone who thinks that’s not right can take it up with them.

This would describe me to a tee. My kids went to good comprehensives in a good area. They could have gone to a grammar school or gone private if they wanted or needed it. I'm still very against private education. It's nothing to do with jealousy it's to do with wanting to live in a country where as many children as possible have access to good schools. Allowing the wealthy to send their already privileged kids to private school (or grammars or religious schools) means there is less desire to improve normal schools.

The biggest way to change a child's outcome in life is through education. If all the wealthy had to send their kids to local schools you would soon see a big improvement in the standard of education offered.

To be clear I’m responding to this post re drinkers etc paying tax and there being low benefits from improving population health

Nowt about education in that post. And I'd disagree with them on the evidence - for drinking, the cost to the NHS of alcoholism, the interaction with violent crime and domestic violence, anti-social behaviour, lost productivity are pretty high and likely still outweighs the tax take on alcohol including VAT.

That's a valid way to look at it from a purely fiscal/utilitarian perspective - money in, money out. For me, the harder to quantify social impacts are a high priority - what does alcohol abuse do to the life chances of people affected - not just the alcoholics but those they impact.

For private education, it's not just about the benefits to the privately educated individuals but the impact on the life chances of those who aren't. As that IFS report points out, they do not operate independently of each other and even controlling for socioeconomic factors there is an impact.

For maximum clarity I'm not suggesting that either private education or private healthcare should be abolished; my own view is that there's a strong case for treating the former as a luxury rather than as a charitable endeavour, based on the broad evidence base. I've asked what if any evidence base exists on the latter before I form a view.

I'm also not suggesting that this is the only I equality I care about in education, which seems to be a weird view on this thread. I'm particularly intrigued by the idea of banding in that Sutton Trust report, along with priority in admissions for kids on pupil premium. I think lotteries are a bit tougher in terms of community cohesion and transport, but I think there are ways they could be used partially.

Also not keen on faith admissions. So many issues to tackle that could improve things! So little time! 😁