Forum menu
So, reflecting on our most recent outrage, that Children in Need are happy to take money from very rich companies and individuals, and (gulp) incur running costs, I was thinking about the ones I remember us covering here in the last couple of years - Royal British Legion, Kids Company, RNLI, RSPCA, in fact most of the ones that have been attacked in what I'll slightly euphemistically refer to as the populist right wing press. However, and correct me if I'm wrong please, there's one notable area that I don't think we've "done" yet, perhaps because that section of the press don't really go there, perhaps because some of them make use of those 'charities'..
I refer to what are legally known as "fee-charging educational charities" and are better known as "private schools".
Yep, for those who don't know (cos it doesn't seem to be talked about much) pretty much every private school in the land is registered as a charity. That includes the big name £30K+ per annum ones that most of the cabinet attended, and send their kids to. The ones that educate the progeny of the global super rich. They're getting tax advantages due to their charitable status.
Is everyone okay with this?
It's a bloody disgrace.
Taking money due to the public purse to maintain the status quo.
Toffs looking after their own isn't charity.
APF
Yes - consider the alternative. The government (for a change) gets a benefit from this arrangement.
The tax benefit < potential cost of schooling those in private education.
(approx 1/3 of pupils receive financial support too)
pretty much every private school in the land is registered as a charity...is everyone okay with this?
Yes.
It's a tax-efficient way of running a not-for-profit organisation.
Are you foaming at the 'Charity' label, or the fact that rich people can also exploit this loophole?
Or both?
I've just made a brew -anyone for a hobnob? 😀 😀 😀
Edlong: debate in this area is interesting on stw because we are a demographic with an above average proportion of members educated by the independent sector and/or sending their children to independent schools.
I'd suggest we disclose this when we discuss it. Me and kids: state schools but this is very much the exception in my wider family.
The schools don't exist to make a profit, so even if they weren't charities then as long as they only broke even every year they still wouldn't pay any tax.
You say it doesn't seem to get talked about much - I'd disagree with this as I've seen it covered quite a bit - particularly due to the fact that OSCR looked at the charitable status of private schools in Scotland a few years ago.
Most schools were found to be meeting the regulator's charitable test, the 10 that did not took steps to rectify this and were later found to be meeting the test.
@THM - A good point. However, 20% of entrants* are from overseas, so not a requirement that would need to be met from the public purse.
Should the tax benefits be enjoyed by the sons and daughters of foreign oligarchs?
*Independent School Council, 2015
I was one of the recipients of the charity bit - went to one of the >£10k/term (todays prices) schools for nowt 😉
But I do agree with you, I went as my local comprehensive was utterly crap at the time. My brother was getting bullied there so he went on a scholarship and my parents let me have a go a couple of years later to see if I could get in on one too. They didn't think I could... but I surprised them.
Whether there is really a place for private schools is another question, and whether they should have charitable status. For me it was difficult as all my friends were considerably more wealthy, I was the poor kid! It has furnished me with a slightly different outlook on life, it made me hugely independent, rubbish at talking about feelings and emotions, gave me the idea that I could do anything and probably opened my eyes to different possibilities than a state school would have.
The crux is - would I send my children to a private school?
No.
Being at the poor end of the spectrum at a place like that is no fun, it is damn hard. The charitable status is only granted because they provide kids like me with a free education paid for out of the money generated by the stupidly expensive fees. I would much rather see additional money pumped into the state schools and a much broader range of social backgrounds mixing, than have an elitist subset that think they are somehow entitled to more than everyone else mainly as they never have to mix with the lower strata of society.
Actually quite a few of the famous ones aren't registered charities, they are recognised charities (very little difference in practice) because they are partially constituted under the Clarendon Act. A pedantic point, but one I enjoyed making immensely.
Charities can't reclaim VAT. That'll learn 'em.
If the charitable status of private schools annoys you,the youll be well annoyed to discover that the govts 15 hours free childcare can be used to lower the overall cost of the first years education,saving approx 3k in fees in the first year,depending on the exact month the child was born
Government is currently consulting on potentially placing some requirements on independent schools to support non fee-paying schools in order for them to retain their charitable status:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/schools-that-work-for-everyone
The schools don't exist to make a profit, so even if they weren't charities then as long as they only broke even every year they still wouldn't pay any tax.
They'd have to pay their full business rates, as opposed to the 80% relief they get as charities - that came to just under £165M tax savings* (so reduced tax revenue for the public purse) for 2012.
*UK Government's Valuation Office Agency
EDIT: Local Authority (state) schools [b]don't[/b] get relief and have to pay 100% of their Business Rates.
NO.
Private Fee paying schools should be abolished. There is no justification for them that meets any sensible scrutiny. They are a major barrier to social mobility, equality, and opportunity.
A charity as defined in law isn't what you'd expect as a lay person. I worked for a company registered as a charity part of who's major business is acting as a consultancy to O&G companies, all perfectly legit. But being a charity does come without some downsides, for instance you don't have limited liability.
I've no issues with whoever being a charity provided they meet the criteria.
But being a charity doesn't come without some downsides, for instance you don't have limited liability.
You do if you're also registered as a limited company.
Is there any issue at all where you dont just talk about money but actually talk about moralsYes - consider the alternative. The government (for a change) gets a benefit from this arrangement.The tax benefit < potential cost of schooling those in private education.
(approx 1/3 of pupils receive financial support too)
Jesus was pretty clear on what he thought of folk who did this
There are a number of organizations - some think tanks as well - that exploit the charitable status when the reality is they do not do any meaningful charity work
By any measure theses schools are amongst this
Giving breaks to the wealthy is always an odd thing to do giving it to them so they can further entrench their privileged position in society is a terrible bar to social mobility
If they must exist then let them at least operate as what they are fee paying organisations making money for a service they provide to PAYING customers.
Its not a charity
whats the scandal?
Most schools were found to be meeting the regulator's charitable test, the 10 that did not took steps to rectify this and were later found to be meeting the test.
Yeah, this is where it is at the moment, the big debate is around the "public benefit test" and it's a subjective area - there isn't a handy Charity Commission list of things they need to do, it's left to the discretion of the trustees to ensure they meet the requirements and can be challenged by the regulator.
It sometimes appears that some are clearly just trying to do the minimum to "get away with it" - a few bursaries for the less well-off and a bit of "community engagement" (such as letting the local state schools have access to their swimming pool).
To be fair, from what I've seen (and I'm really not expert in this area) there also appear to be some who take it more seriously and genuinely make efforts to provide value to the communities they are located in, but you could argue that that isn't any different from a commercial business choosing to give some money to Children in Need, it doesn't make them a charity, at best it makes them a business with a social conscience.
The major piss boiling thing is that, if you're rich enoughm you can "donate" to your kids school and deduct it from your own personal tax bill. SO basically you get to choose where all your tax goes.
Try calling up HMRC and asking them to stop your PAYE because you'd decided to give £700 a month to the local cat rescue instead.
I'd suggest we disclose this when we discuss it. Me and kids: state schools but this is very much the exception in my wider family.
Fair enough - me: private, fee paying (was, and is, a charity). Kids: State (selective Grammar School).
Try calling up HMRC and asking them to stop your PAYE because you'd decided to give £700 a month to the local cat rescue instead.
well actually you could go onto self assessment and probably claim relief on your donations.
State school educated work in state school, worked for 11 in a public school.
It's just an extension of moving to get kids into a good state school or the lottery that is placing kids in local schools. I'm not sure that anyone who complains that their child was sent to a school that performs badly can lambast someone who pays for a child's education by choice.
The school's make no profit and in my experience the spend per pupil is about the same as state. The facilities are usually kept going by wealthy donors. The difference is the parents have the money to buy an education and in some cases are much more involved in that education process.
@THM - A good point. However, 20% of entrants* are from overseas, so not a requirement that would need to be met from the public purse.Should the tax benefits be enjoyed by the sons and daughters of foreign oligarchs?
equally good point - but private education is rapidly becoming beyond the reach of may people and many professions. Hence the rising numbers of overseas pupils - a good and bad thing.
the market is going to sort this out anyway as there is a mass shake out coming - a very few private schools may be able to follow the current trends, but the majority will need to redefine themselves. They are much better at doing this than the Dep of Educ.
it will sort itself out in time - but why the angst - its about 7% if the the pop, let government focus in the 93% where they are not doing a great job - actually they should keep at arms length there too
I blame someone, whoever, whatever. Just think though if we did not have this sort of inequality to moan about then those moaners on here would be board and have no life. "me latte was to milky" will not be enough.
Have you noticed that some religious organizations have charitable status also, some of em are connected to schools and colleges and universities. You could start whole new thread to keep the winging levels up for some time. With any luck the Brexit thread will boil over again and we can get back to that (were is Boris when you need him). Oh no I've just realised, Boris, Charities, private school, it's a conspiracy. STW is being used to promote a political agenda, is it going to be a populist thing like the Trump? You could be on the right issue as some schools for posh kids scankin a bit of tax will certainly cause the masses to vote for a leader who had not privileged education.
you'll have to forgive me I'm under the weather so am bored.
If a child is going to a non-state school, surely that is a significant saving for the public purse? The parents have effectively paid twice for their child's education. Through both taxes and school fees, but the state ends up not having to pay for teachers, buildings, admin, all sorts
What is the annual cost per child of state education? If giving some of this to the private school results in a net saving to the public purse, I can't see how it is a bad deal for the taxpayer?
TRUEit doesn't make them a charity, at best it makes them a business with a social conscience.
the market that led to the dark and satanic mills where children died because it was cheaper than stopping productionthe market is going to sort this out anyway
is this the market you are placing all your faith in to right all wrongs?
Why do you have to play dumb ?why the angst - its about 7% if the the pop
How many folk need to explain it to you on how many threads before you actually grasp the point?
you are free to disagree with it but dont pretend you are so dim you dont know what it is ; being disingenuous does not become you.
I find it a bit baffling - In that I don't understand what the motivation for them to be charities is. Its only tax efficient in the sense that its non-profit disturbing so there are not profits to tax. Any surplus after the costs of running the school needs to be re-invested.
I don't understand the motive for that - if you're charging rich people a lot of money - why not make some profit from it?
The major piss boiling thing is that, if you're rich enoughm you can "donate" to your kids school and deduct it from your own personal tax bill. SO basically you get to choose where all your tax goes.Try calling up HMRC and asking them to stop your PAYE because you'd decided to give £700 a month to the local cat rescue instead.
OK, a couple of points on this - actually you're wrong on the cat rescue thing, you can do this. Instead of giving them £700, give them £560 and tick the Gift Aid box - they still get £700 and you have effectively got the tax back (£140) on your £700 donation.
On your other point re. the tax deductability of the donation to the school, it's essentially the same as the above, but a bit more admin for people doing tax returns.
If you want to get incensed by parents / "customers" of private schools getting personal benefit derived from the school's charitable status, I can do better than that, see my next post...
ninfan - it isnt.
Abolish private schools is a lose:lose situation. Folly and unnecessary. Why close down things that we are good at? Bizarre idea...
Every parent paying fees for a child at a private school is already paying for the education that the child won't take up at a state school and as they will be higher rate tax payers living in expensive houses they will be paying for the education of the children of an unknown number of Internet Argumentalists on here who will, no doubt, be shouting from the rooftops at how unfair everything.
( when they are not puking at the idea of someone giving a lot of money to a worthy charity )
Private education is very cost-effective for the state and long may it continue.
OP so we should include the Universities too then ?
Most schools don't make a profit so registering then as a charity makes virtually no difference, any endowment funds would move offshore if they where dragged into a tax net.
As TMH says private schools aside from generating large amounts of tax and national insurance on wages save the state billions in having to educate children.
Why close down things that we are good at? Bizarre idea...
Because it saves the government having to admit that state schools aren't nearly as good as they should be.
Fee paying schools are brilliant! My son goes to state school but might switch him when he's older.
I went to decent schools with the assisted places scheme that no longer exists, shame I say. Didn't matter to me that most of the kids came from wealthy families. Of course these days kids come from all sorts of backgrounds - except the poorer ones who used to be able to get assisted places.
Shall we get started on the Universities as well?
The top charities by income in Scotland last year:
[i]University Of Edinburgh
University Of Glasgow Court
University Of Strathclyde
University Of Dundee
University Of Aberdeen
University Of St Andrews
Heriot-Watt University
The Glasgow Housing Association Limited
Culture & Sport Glasgow
Glasgow Caledonian University
Edinburgh Napier University
University Of Stirling
The Church Of Scotland
Court of the University of the West of Scotland
The Robert Gordon University
Edinburgh College
University of the Highlands and Islands
SRUC
West College Scotland
New College Lanarkshire
Board of Management of North East Scotland College
Fife College
City of Glasgow College
Richmond Fellowship Scotland Ltd
Glasgow Clyde College
Ayrshire College
Edinburgh Merchant Company Education Board
Mercy Corps Europe
Board Of Management Of Dundee And Angus College[/i]
I find it a bit baffling - In that I don't understand what the motivation for them to be charities is. Its only tax efficient in the sense that its non-profit disturbing so there are not profits to tax.
£165M of Business Rates relief?
Right, try this one for size / acceptability:
Parents can invest big stacks of their money via the schools, and take advantage of the school's charitable status to not pay tax on the interest. Here's how it works:
You're a parent of a kid at X school, fees are £30K per annum. You pay the school £150K of the fees in advance. The school then invests that £150K in a fixed interest product. Since it is the school and not the parent that has made the investment, there is no tax to pay on the interest (cos the school's a charity). The school then gives the parent the value of that (tax free) interest as a discount against their school fees.
This isn't a new thing, by the way, it's been going on for decades. Some schools are more aggressively marketing it to parents than they used to though.
Also note that new State Academy's automatically become Charities
Every parent paying fees for a child at a private school is already paying for the education that the child won't take up at a state school and as they will be higher rate tax payers living in expensive houses they will be paying for the education of the children of an unknown number of Internet Argumentalists on here who will, no doubt, be shouting from the rooftops at how unfair everything.
Apart from the 20% of them that aren't from the UK and aren't paying any UK tax and whose kids' education wouldn't be the responsibility of the state.
Abolish private schools is a lose:lose situation. Folly and unnecessary. Why close down things that we are good at? Bizarre idea...
because they are elitist, and have no part to play in any system of comprehensive education for all children? Every education report you care to read on the subject will tell you that one of the major barriers to social mobility is education, and these institution serve NO other purpose than to prevent that from happening.
Very easy to preach about closing private schools. Less easy when it's your son that has the choice of 40+ pupils in a class, or 12. If you had the money, can you honestly say you wouldn't go the private route?
Which is why so many labour MP's use the private sector.
So yes, I'm very happy that they're charities.
Apart from the 20% of them that aren't from the UK and aren't paying any UK tax and whose kids' education wouldn't be the responsibility of the state.
OK, 80% then, the other 20% ( I'll accept your figures at face value ) are simply bringing money into the country.
Which is a good thing too.
I know posts appearing just before a page turn sometimes get missed, but I really thought that advanced fee thing I posted at the bottom of page 1 would have elicited more (any) reaction...
Alright, I'll be honest, I had that one up my sleeve when I started the thread and thought it would be become the main angle on the debate...
Anyone?
I'll accept your figures at face value
To be fair, I did quote the source when I first mentioned it...
Less easy when it's your son that has the choice of 40+ pupils in a class, or 12. If you had the money, can you honestly say you wouldn't go the private route?
That's not the real choice is it though? No one picks a private school [i]because[/i] of class size (it's just one of the 'advantages'). they pick private schools because they are elitist and give the child an advantage. Private school's sole offer is that they are exclusive, otherwise what's the point?
The argument may as well be; If you had a choice of two schools offering first class education with small class sizes and equal opportunity for all pupils, why would you choose one that you had to pay for?
That's not the real choice is it though? No one picks a private school because of class size (it's just one of the 'advantages'). they pick private schools because they are elitist and give the child an advantage. Private school's sole offer is that they are exclusive, otherwise what's the point?
I can tell you that I specifically chose a private school for class size and class size only. The assumption I make is that there is more contact and thus a better educational input. To me beyond that there are more disadvantages than advantages, but that is quite important to me.
i have never understood why companies whos business is education are allowed to claim to be charities when they clearly arent. They are businesses providing a service to those who choose to pay the fee and are accepted.
All this talk of grants and having a token gesture of scholarships is just a very thin con to justify the benefits of being a charity and there are many. Im quite sure that they companies would stay registered as companies if the tax advantages made that more attractive than charitable status.
Less easy when it's your son that has the choice of 40+ pupils in a class, or 12. If you had the money, can you honestly say you wouldn't go the private route?
However, some research suggests class size has far less impact than better teaching methods.
I have a friend who's offspring won a sports scholarship to a private school. The friend happens to be education officer/quality improvement officer. The statement "less than impressed" has passed her lips regards the teaching methods and "teaching to the exam". A lot of the teaching (outside the of the "extra curricular") is supposedly pretty poor in this school.
So, Tarquin and Portitia get their A* grades, but cannot problem solve their way out a paper bag.
No matter, as Portitia's dad can get her that internship if he just has a chat with his golf partner....
( 😉 )
i have never understood why companies whos business is education are allowed to claim to be charities when they clearly arent. They are businesses providing a service to those who choose to pay the fee and are accepted.
How about a charity that supports state education systems and employees to do things 'better'?
That's not the real choice is it though? No one picks a private school because of class size (it's just one of the 'advantages'). they pick private schools because they are elitist and give the child an advantage. Private school's sole offer is that they are exclusive, otherwise what's the point?
So you somehow know the thought process my wife and I went through 20 years ago?
That's very clever of you. Did you go to a private school?
It was the only thing that made us look at private schools.
and these institution serve NO other purpose than to prevent that from happening.
😯
Private school's sole offer is that they are exclusive, otherwise what's the point?
😯 😯
Very very damning there THM
Its blindingly obvious they give their pupils an advantage WHoTF is going to pay those sort of fees if they don't get a better education/advantage?
Would the statistics that prove the advantage help or will you just emoticon them in an intellectual fabulous and hilarious way ?
DO you really wish to argue you send your kids there for a reason other than to give them a better education/start in life?
It was the only thing that made us look at private schools.
and if you hadn't had the money, what would you have done then?
sent his/her kids to a non fee paying school - just a guess?
A lot of the teaching (outside the of the "extra curricular") is supposedly pretty poor in this school.
So, Tarquin and Portitia get their A* grades, but cannot problem solve their way out a paper bag.
No matter, as Portitia's dad can get her that internship if he just has a chat with his golf partner....
So? Portitia still gets her internship regardless.
and if you hadn't had the money, what would you have done then?
sent his/her kids to a non fee paying school - just a guess?
Exactly.
And your point is?
Point? No point - just answering the question.
If there is a point to any of this, seems to be improving ALL education would be a good starting point. But that requires a bit more head-scratching....so guess what, lets focus on something else instead....
Junkyard- education is an advantage. If you spend 30 mins with your kids every night (regardless of what type of school they go to) then you're giving them an advantage over Kylie who mum just smokes tabs and watches Jeremy Kyle all day. Are you saying we should all stop doing that too?
If something is going to be 'Private' is should be just that - no state involvement, including tax breaks for 'charitable status'. While I'm at it, I'd make all the faith schools become private or make them remove all religious connections.
The opportunity to educate other people's children is a rare privilege, bringing with it a huge responsibility to provide the best all-round education possible as we aim to prepare young people for happiness and success in their adult lives. At Hogwarts we take this responsibility extremely seriously. We care about the individual and pride ourselves in the warmth of a community in which all our pupils feel valued.We live in exciting and fast changing times and this means that providing an outstanding, progressive and well-rounded education is more important than ever. Of course examination results matter and at Hogwarts our pupils consistently achieve excellent results in all areas of the curriculum, giving them access to the top universities in the UK and overseas. However, this is just one aspect of a Hogwarts education and pupils are supported to show ambition both within and beyond the classroom.
School should be fun and happy children are more likely to be successful. We see it as our responsibility to bring out our boys' talents, to broaden their interests and to develop their personal qualities. To do this we aim to foster confidence, perseverance, tolerance and integrity; to enhance communication skills; to embrace creativity; to encourage teamwork; and to promote an open-minded and outward-looking mentality so that boys are ready to make a really positive contribution to their wider community.
Tradition is important here and still shapes some of our guiding principles but we seek to build on the past while looking to the future. This is, and will remain, a forward-thinking school that enthusiastically embraces innovation and new opportunity.
We are committed to making a Hogwarts education accessible to talented boys whatever their background and very significant levels of financial support (up to 100% of full fees) are available through our various bursary schemes. Full details can be found here.
Best wishes
Spanker
Old fool missed the bit about the sole objectives of the school and the sole motivation of the parents. Muppet...
Point? No point - just answering the question.
Sorry THM, what's the point of nicks's comment.
If something is going to be 'Private' is should be just that - no state involvement, including tax breaks for 'charitable status'. While I'm at it, I'd make all the faith schools become private or make them remove all religious connections.
The problem with that, as has been mentioned, without private schools the cost of the state sector would go up a lot, which would be funded by general taxation.
Right
So my parents, who were both state school teachers themselves, chose to scrimp and save, eschew a bigger house, drove a lada and take camping holidays and send me and my sister to a private school so they could show off to their friends (who wouldn't give a sh#t anyway)
Or did they perhaps do it because they (probably quite rightly given their direct experience) believed we would get a better education and therefore have a better chance in life of getting a good job etc by going to a private school compared to the local state schools?
Don't you think they would have preferred to not pay school fees if they thought the education was the same?
I think in the real world you will find very few parents of private school kids (and I'm talking normal private schools not the "name" ones like eton) send their kids for the elitist status and more becaus they believe spending their hard worked for income in this way is looking after their kids better compared to having a bigger car or house.
The trouble with arguments like this (&the NHS one) is that the "death to the elitist toffs" contingent have already made their mind up before they've started.
Disclosure: I went to a private school, initially on an assisted place, which was gradually tapered until by the end of sixth form my parents were paying very nearly full fees. I just checked and my old school is ~£6k/term now.
Not surprisingly I've no objection to private schooling. Not because I don't think it's unfair, but because I don't see how you can draw the line as to what's acceptable. If paying for school is bad, then paying for any private tuition must also be bad. So then paying for music lessons is bad. Same goes for paying for sports activities. Paying for family trips to museums etc. at the weekend. Paying for [i]anything[/i] educational. Even paying for books to read at home: I can afford to buy books, some parents can't. That's very unfair. So buying books for your children should be banned. There should be a standardised government-issued set of reading materials and nothing more. To be fair. "SJ, you're being obtuse". Yes, maybe a little, to illustrate the point. All of those things are examples of money buying education. If that is truly your beef then you need to ban all of them, not just the obvious one at the top of the list. And it's not going to happen. If you simply hate the private schools on some anti-privilege basis without considering what that really means, you're another example of the them/us problem and you're not helping.
If you're genuinely worried about fairness then hell, genetics are unfair. I read to my daughter every day while some parents don't or won't or can't. Do we all need to stop reading, to make things fair ? [1]
But this is the internet. So of course the attitude is: everyone's children should have all the privileges I choose to bestow on mine, but none of the things I don't/can't, because that's unfair. Without realising how ridiculous and self-centred this is 😆
All that said, I'm not sure the private education did me much good. I definitely got better GCSEs / A-Levels than I would have done at the local Comp, but I got a pretty poor degree and spent a long time in crappy jobs. I wouldn't say I've ever been "happy". The haters obviously won't accept this because they're somehow convinced we all automatically become CEOs of major international banks without ever doing any work whatsoever, have mind-blowing fun 24/7 and fart £50 notes every time we laugh.
[1] A story that still shocks me, an ex-colleague recounted that at parents' evening when told his son's reading wasn't progressing he said to the teacher "that's your job". He genuinely believed he had no responsibility whatsoever for his son's education.
Your shocking story is one my Dad heard repeated many, many times as the head of an inner city Midlands primary school.
edlong - Member
I know posts appearing just before a page turn sometimes get missed, but I really thought that advanced fee thing I posted at the bottom of page 1 would have elicited more (any) reaction...
I'll bite
This should be tackled as part of a wider overhaul of the tax system to make tax avoidance impossible.
I have mixed feelings about private schools, I attended one for a few years of my education (would've loved to continue, but my parent's finances changed and they could no longer afford to send me).
In the time I was there, I went from a bored under performing 9 year old who was being put down and ignored by my teachers to a top performer in the school in the same subject (I still remember when we were being told not to "try to run before I could walk", and my dad tells me that preparing for the exam he went through some stuff with me, asking if I had done it at school and I assured him that whilst I hadn't done it at school, I knew how to do it).
The independent school had a fantastic leadership team (especially the primary school - this makes me massively geeky but I loved the headmaster who is sadly no longer with us) who really engaged the children and found something in every child that they could excel at and develop confidence through. I was, despite not being on a full scholarship, towards the bottom end of the financial spectrum there though!
When I returned to the state school system (around 13), I was confronted with classmates who were frightened to be seen as clever, some fairly horrendous teaching in some subjects (and really good teaching in others, to be fair) and very little opportunity for people to develop confidence through extracurricular activities.
I don't think private schools should be stripped of their charitable status, or banned (and I'm horrendously biased due to the benefit I gained from attending one). I do think, however, that state schools should be brought up to the same standard - primarily through having a lot more sport and music and better provision for art - at which point private schools would exist only for those who saw it as an upper class badge of honour.
Sundayjumper sums it up pretty well.
Thanks.
Which comes back to the same issue in all these debates - the single most important factor determining educational success is not the type of school, it is the [b]type of parent [/b]
the ultimate random lottery.....
So we can sum up under life's not fair, deal with it. But on a wider note, surely schools and Uni's fall under (b) of the charities act.
The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:
(a) the prevention or relief of poverty
(b)the advancement of education
(c) the advancement of religion
(d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development
(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
(g) the advancement of amateur sport
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
(j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
(k) the advancement of animal welfare
(l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
(m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales
On this general subject, there appear to be some religious sects - like the Brethren - whose religious charity status and business affairs appear less than transparent.
Places of worship are less than welcoming to outsiders, schools are closed, there cannot be wider social benefits because they very much operate as isolated communities and, furthermore, the ownership of homes and businesses is tied to the organisation.
IMHO, the whole issue of charitable status needs overhaul. It's not currently regulated properly and has bloated beyond the public and moral basis of what would commonly be held to constitute charity in its purest sense.
I really thought that advanced fee thing I posted at the bottom of page 1 would have elicited more (any) reaction...
I see nothing wrong in it, all that's happening is that by paying in advance the school can get a return on the money - the net present value of paying £30k for 5 years is a lot higher than paying £150k up front so the upfront figure should be reduced substantially. I'd still pay the annual figure though as would rather invest in something that would give me a better return than a guaranteed interest rate product.
Try calling up HMRC and asking them to stop your PAYE because you'd decided to give £700 a month to the local cat rescue instead.
But if you are a basic rate taxpayer you can gift aid any donations and the charity claims the tax you paid back. Same effect.
The interest thing is a complete red herring - investment on the basis of differential discount rates is widespread throughout life, you just don't notice it - should be make paying your insurance premium upfront tax avoidance because you get a discount? The real reason parents look at paying their school fees upfront is to avoid school fee inflation which is well in excess of CPI.
The fact it is a red herring is illustrated by the fact that the FCA are investigating private schools for lending money to parents so they are concerned about the reverse position.
Old fool missed the bit
I not sure he is even 40 yet.
most of the cabinet attended
Oh I should probably also point out that only 5 members of the Cabinet attended private schools, the remaining 17 were educated in the state sector.
I see nothing wrong in it, all that's happening is that by paying in advance the school can get a return on the money - the net present value of paying £30k for 5 years is a lot higher than paying £150k up front so the upfront figure should be reduced substantially. I'd still pay the annual figure though as would rather invest in something that would give me a better return than a guaranteed interest rate product.
The interest thing is a complete red herring - investment on the basis of differential discount rates is widespread throughout life, you just don't notice it - should be make paying your insurance premium upfront tax avoidance because you get a discount? The real reason parents look at paying their school fees upfront is to avoid school fee inflation which is well in excess of CPI.
Sorry, I must have not explained this one very clearly.
The school doesn't make the money, the parents do - the school makes the investment, and because they have charitable status they don't pay any tax on the interest it earns. [b]They then give that interest back to the parents[/b] (in the form of a discount on their fees).
The parents are not paying in advance to fix their fees at today's price, that doesn't happen, the fees can (and probably will) still rise, effectively they're paying the money "on account" purely as a way of investing it and dodging the tax that would be due if they did it in their own names. Schools actively market the scheme on this basis - that it is a tax efficient investment. They're not getting a discount for paying up front and helping the school's cashflows - the value of the discount they receive is the value of the (tax free) interest that has been earned on the investment.
Sorry if I could have been clearer about that, I'll try and find something on the internet that explains it better than I can..
[quote=mefty ]most of the cabinet attended
Oh I should probably also point out that only 5 members of the Cabinet attended private schools, the remaining 17 were educated in the state sector.
Your main point stands
However
I should probably point out you got both those numbers wrong
its 8 from 27 FWIW
Despite developments, though, Cabinet ministers are still over four times more likely to have gone to a fee-paying school for most of their secondary education when compared with the overall UK population, of which just seven per cent went to private school.
A fair few went to selective schools though. Feel free to read
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prime-minister-theresa-may-new-cabinet-lowest-number-of-privately-educated-ministers-a7138116.html
FWIW the least privately educated cabinet since clement at less and still x4 the representation would expect.
Still its does not confer any advantage now does it...THM will explain the statistical anomaly via the medium of [s]ignoring [/s] emoticons
Abolish private schools is a lose:lose situation. Folly and unnecessary. Why close down things that we are good at? Bizarre idea...
we were good at slavery, if someone thinks that private schools are wrong and act as an anchor to social mobility than its a valid point. Seems to work in Finland.
THM are you happy that the single biggest factor in education is type (mostly education and wealth) of parent? I am not I thinks its a ****ing disgrace and I think it could, can and in some cases is being changed but that private education acts to prevent this. Why should kids from poor families not have access to good education which gives them the opportunity to even the odds?
As an addition to the OP, is it right that teachers in private schools get access to the teachers pension scheme too?
cranberry - Member
Every parent paying fees for a child at a private school is already paying for the education that the child won't take up at a state school and as they will be higher rate tax payers living in expensive houses they will be paying for the education of the children of an unknown number of Internet Argumentalists on here who will, no doubt, be shouting from the rooftops at how unfair everything.( when they are not puking at the idea of someone giving a lot of money to a worthy charity )
Private education is very cost-effective for the state and long may it continue.
I'm sorry, but this is awful.
I've seen this logic applied to healthcare too, and it's as wrong-headed there as it is here.
The teachers at private schools have in all likelihood been educated and trained by the state. If those teachers work in the independent sector, then the social contract that underpins state-funded services begins to fall apart, as the investment made by the state in those teachers is not realised beyond income tax. This deprives the state sector of - in all likelihood - good quality teachers, a drift that's not very likely to be 'cost-effective'.
The parents of children at independent schools are more likely to be parents with - for a number of reasons - an investment in the eduction of their children that sees them more involved in the running of the school and more invested in the quality of education the school delivers. This is a less tangible benefit that the state sector loses with the growth of the private sector. The net effect is a lowering of the overall levels of attainment and active involvement at state schools, which is a difficult gap to fill. Attempting to do so takes real, tangible money, again something unlikely to be 'cost-effective'.
What you've written is straight from the private sector manifesto of how to strip the public sector of everything of value, and it's exactly that sort of selfish shortsightedness that has led to the miserable experience living in this country has become for an unacceptably large number of citizens.
Yours etc,
Mr I Argumentalist
THM are you happy that the single biggest factor in education is type (mostly education and wealth) of parent?
It is not an emotive issue for me - it is simply what it is - in education and well beyond as others have noted.
I am not I thinks its a **** disgrace and I think it could, can and in some cases is being changed but that private education acts to prevent this.
I disagree - an Act of Parliament does not determine parental attitudes. They do. Hence good parents who value education exist in all levels of society/income mix and vice versa. This has SFA to do with governments/acts of parliaments
No it wont change the parents attitude, what it could change is the quality of education and the opportunities for the pupils. But then I expect you knew that.
the single biggest factor in education is type (mostly education and wealth) of parent?
Life ain't fair deal with it. But seriously killing private education wouldn't stop anything. I went to a top performing comp, was the school any good, not especially, but lots of kids had outside private tuition and hence, exam marks were good. You can't stop that.
I'd just like to point out that it is possible to take a dim view of private schools benefitting from charitable status without necessarily finding that their very existence is an abomination and that they should cease to exist entirely..