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 was a general rebuttal to pp - which included a range of things that benefit society

The BMA report is very good at showing the information the poster requested

So no one's actually argued for lower educational standards then? Cool.

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

Falafe you say you look down on them when they do that but how would you react if they found out where you went to school and said ‘you ghastly privately educated posho’?
That sounds arsey - it’s not meant to. On mn there’s a lot of dislike towards the privately educated and I wondered if people ever give this opinion in real life?

Broad educational standards I would include in this ie parental attitude which would have impact in early years, so pre school too but just general attitude to education

It was mostly health which does impact in early years in BMA report, however learning starts early

Having a society with more of that is beneficial

Having a society with more of that is beneficial.

I don't disagree. But back to the subject of the thread, I'm not sure that either private education or private healthcare, in a system where the vast majority of users are already in a privileged demographic, contribute much, if at all, to those goals.

@Barbadossunset i think I would laugh and say I am not surprised you might think that, I went to school with many any idiot, but in between the idiots there are some decent people too.

*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.*

I don't think the people I described are jealous of those who send their children to private schools. It sounds like the school your children went to is really good. Was it the school that middle class people in your area really wanted? If so, your having chosen it probably didn't mean that it was improved (although I am sure that your children did very well there).

To improve schools in general, you would need to pick the school that other people don't want. Which is going to be too big an ask of parents - they are not going to choose their own children's school out of altruism.

The U.K. does pretty well in offering free health care to all and a decent standard of education for many. The 7 per cent privately educated is neither here nor there.

Where the U.K. does badly is in supporting the very poorest and weakest in society, lack of mental health support, social housing, full support for poor and deprived infants etc. So all I am saying is focussing on schools is far too late when most of the damage happens before a child reaches the age of 5. The advent of zero hours contracts etc, terrible housing, exponential house price growth is far worse than a few private schools. I would also add to that the big divide in different regions eg London vs very deprived underemployed areas. So I think this is just a distraction strategy, far better would be to introduce CGT on main residence, control house price inflation in the long run, stop foreigners buying such a scarce resource, for example. Stop tax evasion which happens a lot.

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

Excuse me, I certainly did NOT argue for lower population health, I questioned where the evidence was for societal benefits of higher population health. I fully accept that there are individual benefits. (And as @JassyRadlett has pointed out, I made no mention of education at all in my post.)

As for quoting a BMA statement, they are quite literally the trade union for doctors in this country. They are not a neutral source of objective opinion, therefore if they are going to issues statements like 'preventable, long-term conditions makes up around 50% of GP appointments and 70% of hospital days' they are going to need to a) provide evidence for this claim and b) define exactly what they mean by 'preventable'. Without that, it is still just opinion; it may be expert opinion, but it still isn't data.

I questioned where the evidence was for societal benefits of higher population health

Well I googled to answer the question. Unfortunately BMA isn’t good enough as you know better for whatever reason. I’m not wasting time hunting around for an alternative source. If you want to read up on it and learn more go for it.

I don't have to look up anything, thanks, I'm not the one making grandiose statements about population health which I can't back up with any evidence – and no, the statement from the BMA does not constitute evidence. Even reputable organisations have to provide sources for their information. If they quoted the surveys or studies which indicated that 'preventable long-term conditions makes [sic] up around 50% of GP appointments', that would be different as that would be robust data supporting their statement. As they can't, or won't, it's a completely meaningless statistic.

They would also have to define precisely what they mean by 'preventable'. Is Type 2 diabetes preventable? Or obesity? Or alcoholism? What about illnesses we vaccinate against? It's a much more nuanced topic than that word would indicate. Honestly, the more I read that statement the more I realise what total bollocks it is.

So as it stands the notion that better individual health has benefits for the whole of society remains simply an opinion, not a proven fact.

I don't have to look up anything, thanks, I'm not the one making grandiose statements about population health

Feel free to write to the BMA and let them know all about their grandiose statements, get published with your great views, I don’t care. pointless.

www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/population-health-approach

The other point that has not really been discussed properly is the concept of “British education” as a brand. This is a very real concept. It is why many independents have successfully opened schools in Asia, Dubai etc on franchises and have been able to use some profits towards bursaries in the UK itself.

However, the point I am most interested in is that UK education being a brand directly impacts universities in the UK, more overseas students apply/more money as they pay huge fees. More direct talent enters the UK job market etc.

I do not think it is worth harming a brand such as UK education because I think it benefits UK society more than it harms it.

So as a Labour voter I really do not like this policy of hate. On many levels, it is almost as bad as Brexit to me. It represents value destruction at a time when we can least afford it.

@Aleaiactaest absolutely support British private education being sold as a luxury brand to foreign buyers - like Burberry or Landrover etc, as long as it has VAT payable on it like other products.

labour.org.uk/skillsreport/

labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/WR-16813_22-Labour-Skills-Council-report-Edit-19-10-22.pdf

I found this report far more important than the debate about independent schools VAT/charitable status etc.

However, the point I am most interested in is that UK education being a brand directly impacts universities in the UK, more overseas students apply/more money as they pay huge fees. More direct talent enters the UK job market etc.

Someone mentioned earlier - or maybe on another thread - that British universities are broadening their intake to include far more state educated students, but are there any checks done on the backgrounds and education of overseas students?
Afaik no one answered this and I wondered if those applying from British public school franchises abroad are counted as going to a British private school?

@Andante57 - feel free to make a Freedom of Information request to Oxford or Cambridge in particular. It is one of the hypocrisies that is most grating… However, there is also a resource issue because how much resource can you realistically put into the admissions system and understanding the education landscape of foreign countries?

A good post. U.K. education is an asset as you say, it also feeds into reputation of universities which rely heavily on o/s students who usually pay more.

Another plus that I heard the other day by spokesperson is universities are across the U.K. so benefit areas other than London.

It does feel similar to Brexit as it’s emotion over benefit (I’d also say abolishing HoL too but for another thread).

It is one of the hypocrisies that is most grating.

Yes.

@MarshaBradyo -Another plus that I heard the other day by spokesperson is universities are across the U.K. so benefit areas other than London.

That is an excellent point because a lot of the poverty reports pick up on the terrible regional divides/differences in England and across the UK.

But the private education product will be less attractive without enough British students in it. This is why many traditional boarding schools now allow day students or flexi / weekly boarding. If most British students are priced out, what will happen to the brand? This article, for example, talks about this issue: www.ft.com/content/98ed81ac-f529-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654

I can understand the philosophy of this VAT but think it will do more harm than good economically.

Now that's a bit more interesting, thanks for that link @Aleaiactaest.

Why would you just take on trust something a trade union tells you @MarshaBradyo? Do you automatically believe everything Mick Lynch says too? Perhaps you're one of those people who think all doctors are always right, my parents are like that. Don't fall into that camp myself I'm afraid, too cynical, too sceptical.

"How to crack the class ceiling" BBC programme is quite interesting www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001fygr (although I could not stand listening to the presenter who drops his ts and is covered in jewellery and even has an earring so that pretty much sums up my class I suppose