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)

But you can't actually remove choice from parents.

What is to stop a group of Eton parents getting together to home-school their children, employing some outside tutors (ex Eton teachers) to take the lessons and finding a nice empty building near Windsor to hire to do this in?

Or indeed moving Eton (or any other school of its ilk) to Switzerland/Ireland/other country?

If your child is already boarding then what's a ferry or a flight on top?

What are your plans for the private special schools? The places that specialise for children with severe SEN? Or how about the Royal Ballet School, or the specialist music schools?

Perhaps we should also ban things like football academies as it's not fair that some children get special training there?

I think you are wrong re a referendum - I wouldn't vote for it, and I'm state educated with a child in the state system. Politics of envy is ugly.

They do it because they are charities, and they have too. But they will stop once they lose their charitable status.

Whatever the merits of the policy some of the people attacking it are doing themselves (and their cause) no favours whatsoever. Suspect Labour are loving it.

twitter.com/thecarolemalone/status/1597976412073304064

I find the argument that local community groups who hire out facilities will lose out to be a rather odd one. Local sports teams, choirs, etc looking for a venue have plenty of options in both the state and private sector (plus church halls, etc) and choose a venue that suits them best. What the private schools offer them is nothing they can't also get from other places - the private schools may list this "community usage" in their social value statements used to justify charitable status, but the reality is that they charge the organisations what they're willing to pay, maybe slightly more than other options for slightly nicer facilities, but not a lot. If they trippled the price they'd lose the customers.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow 'home-schooling' is not a term in the UK. If those former Etonians were to elect for home education, they couldn't buy a building and staff it with teachers. That would be an illegal school. Provision for more than 5 pupils requires a registration as a school. They probably wouldn't go for that as the corrupt nepotism and networking wouldn't be as readily available.

In my experience (some) private schools do loads of charity work and raise lots of money for charity. Probably more than state schools do. Also, private schools run workshops for state school pupils and enrichment activities after-school and weekends. This is aimed at the gifted pupils in the most disadvantaged state schools in the area. The students get to use the better facilities, better resources and equipment, and helps to raise their aspirations. It costs the private schools time and money to run the workshops, and they don't have to do it. I can see that ending if the charitable status is removed.

Where I live the music and sports facilities would not exist if it weren't for the private schools. Not just lower quality but wouldn't exist. Particularly for theatre, arts and music support. And holiday clubs.

Look, they just aren't charities. They should not get the status. There's no argument at all for giving them that status.

Public benefit isn't provided because the schools are providing a small number of pupils with education and saving the state money - I'm pretty sure that is established law. Public benefit is provided (in theory) because private schools provide bursaries open up playing fields, etc to the public. In reality they provide the smallest number of teeny bursaries and share facilities to a minimal degree.

Most private school parents will continue to pay, and those that can't afford will have to use state education like the other 93% of the public.

And I have had a child with SEN. I know about the state sector, but they just aren't charities. And neither is private healthcare for that matter.

The argument is often put that private schools deserve charitable status because they often provide scholarships and that many allow local state schools occasional access to their facilities. The implication is that this investment in local communities is some sort of cynical quid pro quo, which would end if they weren't getting the tax breaks. Which doesn't sound particularly charitable IMO. Some private institutions invest in their local communities because it's kind of a good thing to do. BTW, Sunak granted £6 million of taxpayer money to his alma mater this year.

Not looking forward to this.

DC are at a fee paying school. It’s a struggle but we can just afford it. Things are tight. If this law goes through we will pull them out, move house and put them in a good state school. We are cash strapped due to fees but have equity in the house so could move. It will disadvantage another family who want to live in catchment but there isn’t a choice is there.

DC school obviously has charitable status. For this they have:

• community clubs for children after school (STEM, Lego, film, sports etc) that only children who do not attend the school can go to.
• nursery team who drive out to nurseries and preschools twice a day, pick up a class (minibus) & do Forrest schools twice a day (10 sessions a week 200 children a week).
• 2 of the Forrest school sessions are specifically for children with SEN. No other school locally offers this facility.
• soup kitchen on Sunday nights in tandem with local church.
• outreach to local schools for music lessons
• bursaries & scholaships
• girls only football for local primacy school children coached by professional coaches.
• community theatre groups also have use of the professional standard drama suite 3 nights a week. It’s amazing.

There is loads. The school is a community hub and it will be a shame when all that stops. It is also the ‘local pool’ for 6 primary schools at no charge.

but, Like everyone says - the country is broken & we must all pay more. The only people who loose when this law passes are children.

This seems more likely to rally labour's base than swing votes, and I wish labour had led with something more positive on education alongside this. As it is they're taking over on a dire economy and they don't have the same options as new labour did.

Of course nepotism will still exist!! Agree that private schools shouldn't exist but don't agree that by removing them we will remove the things that irritate us about them.

It’s very much aimed to the politics of envy vote rather than the swing voter.

They probably don’t even need these headline winners that are bad in reality. Just more vision

I agree. I’ve left the Labour Party because I disagree with their stance on single sex spaces for women but this would also have been a deal breaker for me.

I wonder how we (U.K.) will afford to build the new schools, especially the SEN ones that will be needed.

@flowerycurtain I meant that if the rich home educated their children, at least the nepotism couldn't be institutionalised.

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.

There are state funded nurseries from 2-5 years though. Some parents choose to send theirs to private nurseries instead. Presumably you would agree with adding VAT to nursery fees where there’s a state alternative? Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people are happy to say “oh yes let’s add VAT to private school fees” when it won’t affect them, but are less keen on taxing things which would affect them.

I find that very surprising @flowerycurtain . Don't the state schools near you have school halls? I live in a very ordinary town and our state schools (including a sixth form college) have between them many school halls, sports halls, theatres, pianos, playing fields, football and tennis pitches and a small swimming pool. Have you really been to many state schools?

Home schooling is an accepted term for EHE and some use it, as you can see from this government page.

If labour put VAT on independent school fees, I and many others children will end up in state sector so instead of my local authority having my sons state place and all my income tax etc being funded and not have to pay it out on him, they will have to and the already full state sector will be on its knees

It won't necessarily mean fees go up 20%. First all those facilities made available to outsiders, bursaries etc can be abolished at a stroke saving the school a lot of money which can absorb some of the 20%. Secondly if you are not a charity you can claim back VAT on your spending. I think there are some other advantages too from a tax point of view as the laws about charities are very complicated and restricting.

However it is difficult thing Labour is trying to do as there are existing trusts and no profits made for hundreds of years by most of the schools which I suppose some how will have to be changed eg if the school owns half of a city on trust for the school would that then be profits that could be used to pay the head £1m a year or give dividends to new shareholders?

*The rest are like mine, in a private school costing £14-18K a year and scraping together the fees to do so.

Also, moving them to state wouldn't stop me from focusing on their education. I would get a tutor for my DC, pay for extracurricular activities and move to be near the school*

Assuming that the school claims back 5% of the VAT and absorbs another 5% of the increase, the annual increase would be £1400-£1800 or £116-£180

"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.

Aargh - pressed post accidentally ...

£116 - £150 pcm.

You can't afford that but you'd spend money on tutors, activities and stamp duty?

I'm no Labour supporter but many independent schools are big businesses, with branches overseas.
I think it's appalling that they can register as charities. I understand the historical reason why, but that's no longer valid.