Charitable status and private schools

How can an institution that enables the richest people in the country to achieve a better education for their children than the poorest be a charity?

Ask Keir MayBee70

GSM
Any attempts to remove people’s choice to send their children to independent schools if they so wish are nothing to do with having ‘a fairer society’. It’s a case of ‘if I can’t afford it I’ll make sure you can’t have it’.

Sadly, that’s true.

Every time this discussion comes up, and it does regularly, whether it’s to do with government changes or not, it makes a point that removing private schools would automatically improve state schools.

I’ve yet to see any rational proof that this would happen.

I’m all in favour of any government who will improve all state schools so that improvements in state schools don’t just happen in places where the better off parents send their children. Or where extra equipment isn’t more frequently seen in schools where the PTA is supported by more affluent parents in the state system.

Taking away, the choice of sending your children to private schools wouldn’t do that.

Do those parents who send their children to private schools already pay tax on their income, which goes to pay for state education?
Is the suggestion that they should pay tax to put their children into the state system which would be catering for even more children?


Freedom of choice sometimes makes life unfair e.g.
having the right to have a holiday home in popular tourist places that you chose to buy with your hard earned money on, which swallows up housing for people who can’t even afford one home near where they work.
Where should the freedom of choice stop?

MayBee70

How can an institution that enables the richest people in the country to achieve a better education for their children than the poorest be a charity?

Well, MayBee, if you look back over this thread posters have set out ways that the schools which are charities observe the letter of the law.

But it's ironic, isn't it, that the most prestigious of the charity schools, Eton, did start, hundreds of years ago, as a genuine charity school, to educate children of the poor. It only started taking fee paying pupils to make ends meet. I suppose that original endowments lost so much value over the centuries that the school couldn't exist without the fees. It would be interesting to know how much the original endowments were and what conditions were attached to them.

My OH went to Christs Hospital, another ancient charity school. He got there by way of a scholarship but many of the pupils were fee paying. But there was an income limit over which pupils couldn't, in theory, be accepted. Though I believe that exceptions were made for the sons of former pupils... The Old Blues that I met years ago were rarely from 'poor' families.

Every time this discussion comes up, and it does regularly, whether it’s to do with government changes or not, it makes a point that removing private schools would automatically improve state schools.

Where has anyone, apart from the odd poster, actually said that, Mollygo?

Mollygo

GSM
Any attempts to remove people’s choice to send their children to independent schools if they so wish are nothing to do with having ‘a fairer society’. It’s a case of ‘if I can’t afford it I’ll make sure you can’t have it’.

Sadly, that’s true.

Every time this discussion comes up, and it does regularly, whether it’s to do with government changes or not, it makes a point that removing private schools would automatically improve state schools.

I’ve yet to see any rational proof that this would happen.

I’m all in favour of any government who will improve all state schools so that improvements in state schools don’t just happen in places where the better off parents send their children. Or where extra equipment isn’t more frequently seen in schools where the PTA is supported by more affluent parents in the state system.

Taking away, the choice of sending your children to private schools wouldn’t do that.

Do those parents who send their children to private schools already pay tax on their income, which goes to pay for state education?
Is the suggestion that they should pay tax to put their children into the state system which would be catering for even more children?

Freedom of choice sometimes makes life unfair e.g.
having the right to have a holiday home in popular tourist places that you chose to buy with your hard earned money on, which swallows up housing for people who can’t even afford one home near where they work.
Where should the freedom of choice stop?

Excellent Post.

We choose fee based Religious education.

That is a choice.

What to spend excess hard earned money on as one sees fit.

MaizieD

^Every time this discussion comes up, and it does regularly, whether it’s to do with government changes or not, it makes a point that removing private schools would automatically improve state schools.^

Where has anyone, apart from the odd poster, actually said that, Mollygo?

Do odd posters not count?

Mollygo

MaizieD

Every time this discussion comes up, and it does regularly, whether it’s to do with government changes or not, it makes a point that removing private schools would automatically improve state schools.

Where has anyone, apart from the odd poster, actually said that, Mollygo?

Do odd posters not count?

Not really, IMO. But if you think they do, perhaps you should address them personally.

Otherwise, there is consensus among most of the 'leftish' posters that you seem to be ignoring.

Profit has no connection to VAT. If a school wishes to maintain its charitable status by avoiding making a profit then it can do so in a variety of ways, such as more bursaries to poor children or hiring more teachers. Not everything is subject to VAT and so the VAT surplus would not be affected.

Of course they could reduce their fees to reduce the total output tax charged to parents but would at the same time reduce the amount available to spend on capital expenditure.

I had a look at Eton College's financial statements for 2021/22. In that year the gross fees were £59,086,000 and expenditure on premises was £30,470,000. Expenditure on fixed assets was net construction costs £7,450,000 and plant and equipment £464,000. That's about £20 million difference between outputs and input subject to VAT - about £4 million to the Treasury. There's insufficient information to break the figures down further.

Otherwise, there is consensus among most of the 'leftish' posters that you seem to be ignoring.
Soooo sorry! I didn’t know I get told what I’m allowed to post about.

And every time this subject comes up
(I scrolled back through the subject arising and you could do the same), suggestions arrive that removing parental choice to pay for their children’s education will improve state education.
I have yet to see any rational proof that that would happen. I didn’t notice any such proof appearing.

I’ve not mentioned ‘charitable status’. Evidently even KS thinks that’s a hot potato that would lose him votes, or even donors.

Dinahmo seems to me that Eton doesn’t need to charge fees - it has a mountain of reserves. Not many private schools are in such a privileged position. Again Labour is pulling up the ladder….
Eton has produced some real oddities and I fail to see why anyone would think it’s a good school.

ronib

Dinahmo seems to me that Eton doesn’t need to charge fees - it has a mountain of reserves. Not many private schools are in such a privileged position. Again Labour is pulling up the ladder….
Eton has produced some real oddities and I fail to see why anyone would think it’s a good school.

I was answering your post at 12:58:21 re VAT. I chose Eton as an example because I doubted whether I'd easily find the financial statements of other private/public schools on line. I mentioned where I obtained the figures so that you or anyone else reading my earlier comment could check them.

ronib

Dinahmo seems to me that Eton doesn’t need to charge fees - it has a mountain of reserves. Not many private schools are in such a privileged position. Again Labour is pulling up the ladder….
Eton has produced some real oddities and I fail to see why anyone would think it’s a good school.

Most schools produce some oddities, even bog-standard comprehensives.

In fact, it is probably not the fault of the school but of nature or nurture.

MayBee70

How can an institution that enables the richest people in the country to achieve a better education for their children than the poorest be a charity?

MayBee it's really not that difficult. The "charity" is not for those who are able to pay the fees but for children whose parents cannot, for community projects the school may support or to enable other schools to have the use of facilities, etc.,

But, looking at your description of "the richest people in the country", you don't want any truths to spoil your bias, do you?

But, looking at your description of "the richest people in the country", you don't want any truths to spoil your bias, do you?

I think she was referring specifically to Eton, DAR. No need to be nasty to her.

Well, I do find it difficult or I wouldn’t have asked the question. I don’t understand what you mean by bias. I just want education to be a more level playing field.

Ah. Eton wasn't mentioned. No need to be nasty to me either Maisie, but that doesn't seem to stop it happening.

There are nine, only nine public schools in the country. The rest of the independent schools do not have the richest people in the country as parents.

That actually makes the arguement seem even more biased. Why spend time ridiculing the parents, hopefully not the parents of Kings Scholars, of one school, when the entirety of state system needs immediate attention?

MayBee70

Well, I do find it difficult or I wouldn’t have asked the question. I don’t understand what you mean by bias. I just want education to be a more level playing field.

I just want education to be a more level playing field. MayBee

So do I. But I also believe you win more with honey than vinegar.

Mollygo

^Otherwise, there is consensus among most of the 'leftish' posters that you seem to be ignoring.^
Soooo sorry! I didn’t know I get told what I’m allowed to post about.

And every time this subject comes up
(I scrolled back through the subject arising and you could do the same), suggestions arrive that removing parental choice to pay for their children’s education will improve state education.
I have yet to see any rational proof that that would happen. I didn’t notice any such proof appearing.

I’ve not mentioned ‘charitable status’. Evidently even KS thinks that’s a hot potato that would lose him votes, or even donors.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Mollygo

^Otherwise, there is consensus among most of the 'leftish' posters that you seem to be ignoring.^
Soooo sorry! I didn’t know I get told what I’m allowed to post about.

And every time this subject comes up
(I scrolled back through the subject arising and you could do the same), suggestions arrive that removing parental choice to pay for their children’s education will improve state education.
I have yet to see any rational proof that that would happen. I didn’t notice any such proof appearing.

I’ve not mentioned ‘charitable status’. Evidently even KS thinks that’s a hot potato that would lose him votes, or even donors.

But in countries where there is no private education (eg Finland, Canada etc) the standard of education for everyone is better. I need to relisten to TRIP’s podcast that discusses it. We’ve always had this idea that state education in this country is some of the best in the world but I’m sure that a few years ago I read that even Romania was better than us.

Private education is available in both Finland and Canada.

MayBee70

Mollygo

Otherwise, there is consensus among most of the 'leftish' posters that you seem to be ignoring.
Soooo sorry! I didn’t know I get told what I’m allowed to post about.

And every time this subject comes up
(I scrolled back through the subject arising and you could do the same), suggestions arrive that removing parental choice to pay for their children’s education will improve state education.
I have yet to see any rational proof that that would happen. I didn’t notice any such proof appearing.

I’ve not mentioned ‘charitable status’. Evidently even KS thinks that’s a hot potato that would lose him votes, or even donors.

But in countries where there is no private education (eg Finland, Canada etc) the standard of education for everyone is better. I need to relisten to TRIP’s podcast that discusses it. We’ve always had this idea that state education in this country is some of the best in the world but I’m sure that a few years ago I read that even Romania was better than us.

but I’m sure that a few years ago I read that even Romania was better than us.

I'm not sure where you read that, but it doesn't really sound like reliable evidence, Maybee.

It depends on the criteria applied too: the UK is either 2nd,
6th or 11th, or take your pick of any number but I haven't seen much evidence that education in Romania is better than in the UK.

Callistemon21

MayBee70

Mollygo

Otherwise, there is consensus among most of the 'leftish' posters that you seem to be ignoring.
Soooo sorry! I didn’t know I get told what I’m allowed to post about.

And every time this subject comes up
(I scrolled back through the subject arising and you could do the same), suggestions arrive that removing parental choice to pay for their children’s education will improve state education.
I have yet to see any rational proof that that would happen. I didn’t notice any such proof appearing.

I’ve not mentioned ‘charitable status’. Evidently even KS thinks that’s a hot potato that would lose him votes, or even donors.

But in countries where there is no private education (eg Finland, Canada etc) the standard of education for everyone is better. I need to relisten to TRIP’s podcast that discusses it. We’ve always had this idea that state education in this country is some of the best in the world but I’m sure that a few years ago I read that even Romania was better than us.

but I’m sure that a few years ago I read that even Romania was better than us.

I'm not sure where you read that, but it doesn't really sound like reliable evidence, Maybee.

It depends on the criteria applied too: the UK is either 2nd,
6th or 11th, or take your pick of any number but I haven't seen much evidence that education in Romania is better than in the UK.

I’m going back many years probably and I don’t have evidence to back it up but I do have a very good memory for snippets of things that stick in my mind. At the time there seemed to be little known or understood about autism and I’m sure that Romania had a programme for treating children with autism called conductive education (?). What I’m trying to say is that people in the UK always assume that we’re world beating and better at everything but quite often we aren’t.

I’m sure that Romania had a programme for treating children with autism called conductive education (?).

I thought it was focussed on children with disorders such as cerebral palsy, started by a Hungarian (?) and is not entirely accepted as a reliable therapy?