We have pooled thoughts on the NHS, how about education?

I believe that private education is seen as elitist and for this reason, it attracts criticism. I have already pointed out that the entire university system in the Uk is elitist in the extreme. When I jokingly suggest that Oxford and Cambridge perhaps Imperial and LSE too should be closed down if private education were somehow abolished, I was met with disbelief. Either we are fully egalitarian in all respects or not.

Callistemon21

growstuff

Joseanne

I can give you the simple answer, as I do know, DaisyAnne.
Effectively it would mean the school would have to close because all of the school's assets would have to be re distributed to other charities.

Of course it wouldn't mean that all private schools would close. Why on earth would the school's assets be redistributed to other charities? It would mean that private schools would pay taxes to the government.

I'm struggling to understand how this would benefit the government in any way.

If some taxes had to be paid to the government because private schools lost their charitable status then some schools could be forced to close.

If these schools were to close then the extra tax would be lost and funding would have to be found to accommodate these pupils at state schools.

As many of their parents who are UK residents are taxpayers already then where would the extra money come from to fund state school places for these extra pupils?

There is no benefit in forcefully closing fee-paying schools Callistemon. It's one of those cases where wishes/opinions are treated as fact. No one has offered any factual evidence to show where banning such education has benefited state education.

I want a vastly improved State Education. I have faith that, with investment, teachers treated as the professionals they are (although higher degrees may be expected if you use the Finish model), it would be a success. Then people would be happy to stop paying fees. There would be a move to state schools by choice, not force.

It would be even more so if we followed another part of Finish education system where government pays students a monthly allowance of about 500 euros (2021). The carrot is almost always more successful than the stick.

The demand for the closure of fee-paying schools reminds me of the Brexit vote. There, quite a lot of people voted for something because their nose was quite reasonably out of joint. Just as with state education it came down to how they had been treated and ingnored over the years. But because they were sold something as a truth - as the answer - when it wasn't, they voted for something that would not solve their problem. They spent hours discussing it and shouting at those who didn't agree. And here we go again.

How would the money from the removal of charitable status from private schools
benefit state education?

volver

As are yours, very often, DaisyAnne. Wish I could say I was flattered.

🙂

p.s. I think you got your asterisks in the wrong place.

Not about you volver. In sympathy with Joseanne. Mind you, I wouldn't expect you to see it like that.

growstuff

DaisyAnne Why would it be so difficult to remove a school's charitable status? By law, they have to provide certain services, such as a limited number of subsidised places or letting outsiders use their facilities. However, in most cases the value of the charitable acts is nowhere near the amount of subsidy received. The "poor" don't benefit from the subsidies anyway, as the fees (even with discounts) are beyond most people's ability to pay.

Except ... I didn't say a word about it being difficult to remove a school's charitable status. I wonder what you read that made you think I did?

It still seems that none of the people, who want this to be undemocratically removed, can explain exactly what you need to do to get the status - just their opinion.

The biggest gain to the schools (or any other charity) is that cut in business rates of up to 80%. This suggests that the amount of charity is, in some way, relative to the amount of relief. It would be interesting to know if that is the case and how it works. A few facts, in this current desert, wouldn't go amiss.

No one has offered to only have NHS Low Income standard of dental work until we all get comprehensive dental treatment provided by the state either. Why is that different?

Independent schools generally have their buildings, land and investments in charitable trusts. If charitable status is taken away it presents a problem. I'd rather see schools being required to demonstrate their benefit to the public more explicitly but an attempt to force that was challenged in the courts and the challenge was upheld. It's not as straightforward as it may seem. A report in TES a few years ago estimated that £3.5billion annually would need to be spent to accommodate the children who were being privately educated in the State system (think that makes sense!) I don't think that includes the cost of building additional schools etc. I think there are more important things to focus on.

maddyone

^Keep charitable status so state schools don’t get overcrowded.^

What’s wrong with that? Do we want state schools to be even more overcrowded than they already are? Is that to be our aim, pressurise the parents of children who are at independent schools into sending their children to state schools by making the fees higher?
Let’s face it, we all know that the government aren’t going to put more money into education in order to reduce class sizes. Remove charitable status and class sizes will rise. As an ex state school teacher, that is not what I want. Class sizes are big enough already. Let the independent schools get on with doing what they do and state schools get on with doing what they do. In both cases, educate children.

I agree with maddyone

Remove charitable status and class sizes will rise

The money raised will be minimal compared to the cost of educating pupils from the closed private schools who would have to be absorbed into the state system.

growstuff

Joseanne

I can give you the simple answer, as I do know, DaisyAnne.
Effectively it would mean the school would have to close because all of the school's assets would have to be re distributed to other charities.

Of course it wouldn't mean that all private schools would close. Why on earth would the school's assets be redistributed to other charities? It would mean that private schools would pay taxes to the government.

I'm struggling to understand how this would benefit the government in any way.

If some taxes had to be paid to the government because private schools lost their charitable status then some schools could be forced to close.

If these schools were to close then the extra tax would be lost and funding would have to be found to accommodate these pupils at state schools.

As many of their parents who are UK residents are taxpayers already then where would the extra money come from to fund state school places for these extra pupils?

As are yours, very often, DaisyAnne. Wish I could say I was flattered.

🙂

p.s. I think you got your asterisks in the wrong place.

Joseanne

I really have no interest in how you feel volver, but I do remember you using that same word yesterday evening around this time! And no one else has.

volver's post are always and ever all about *volver Joseanne.

Volver, Sorry, I really don't understand why stopping them being charities is such a big deal.

It's not a big deal. Tuition may increase.

We've already made the commitment to pay, regardless what others think of fee-based schools, we'd continue.

Joseanne

volver

Serious question - why would this have to happen if charitable status was removed? They'd still be schools. Even if some of them went out of business, why would their assets have to go to other schools?

I'm not sure, who would actually own the school then?

The school? Or whoever owned it before?

Sorry, I really don't understand why stopping them being charities is such a big deal...

volver

Serious question - why would this have to happen if charitable status was removed? They'd still be schools. Even if some of them went out of business, why would their assets have to go to other schools?

I'm not sure, who would actually own the school then?

If you really want to make a dent, I would remove nursery funding in independent school settings. If the parents choose to send their children to private school they are going to be paying for around 14 years, so they can well afford to pay their Nursery fees. Give this money to those who really need it at this point in a child's life.

Serious question - why would this have to happen if charitable status was removed? They'd still be schools. Even if some of them went out of business, why would their assets have to go to other schools?

I guess the Treasury in the long run, but as I understand it all properties and assets held by private schools would be redistributed across the country’s educational establishments.
I would imagine that might be a nightmare to do fairly.

Mollygo

So if charitable status is withdrawn, who benefits?

The Treasury?

So if charitable status is withdrawn, who benefits?

Joseanne

It is not a legal requirement to provide a limited number of subsidised places. They are other ways to demonstrate "public benefit." No school is obliged to provide bursaries, though most do.

I gave bursaries as an example. Nowhere did I state it was an obligation.

There is no justification for charitable status.

It is not a legal requirement to provide a limited number of subsidised places. They are other ways to demonstrate "public benefit." No school is obliged to provide bursaries, though most do.

Because that is what happens in English and Welsh charity law if a charity ceases to be a charity. If it were possible for schools to give up their charitable status many would have already done so, as there are actually few benefits from having this status if they are a not for profit business anyway.
You only pay tax on profits.

DaisyAnne Why would it be so difficult to remove a school's charitable status? By law, they have to provide certain services, such as a limited number of subsidised places or letting outsiders use their facilities. However, in most cases the value of the charitable acts is nowhere near the amount of subsidy received. The "poor" don't benefit from the subsidies anyway, as the fees (even with discounts) are beyond most people's ability to pay.

Joseanne

I can give you the simple answer, as I do know, DaisyAnne.
Effectively it would mean the school would have to close because all of the school's assets would have to be re distributed to other charities.

Of course it wouldn't mean that all private schools would close. Why on earth would the school's assets be redistributed to other charities? It would mean that private schools would pay taxes to the government.

ronib

Maizie D but of course, private schools contribute to the economy. Teachers, admin, groundsmen, matrons, cooks etc all pay their taxes and National Insurance! The local economy, hotels and restaurants benefit from visiting parents.
The alumni of the major public schools are not interested in ruling as such but more likely to be successful and energetic business men, investment bankers, lawyers, medics and even engineers!

All state schools pay non-domestic rates (business rates), which they have to pay from their budget.

Meanwhile, for private schools, operating surpluses and capital gains are exempt from income tax, capital gains tax or corporation tax. Private schools receive an 80% discount on business rates and can claim an extra 25% from the government on all donations received.

It's estimated the tax breaks are worth £3 billion.

Anyway, we're not talking about abolishing private education, just removing their charitable status.