Charitable status and private schools

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.

Just in case you missed my original post, I said,

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.

As for no fee paying schools in Canada. A simple Google produced this;
^ The average cost of a private school in Ontario, for example, could be anything between $10,000 and $50,000 per year. These fees are often over and above other expenses including textbooks, uniforms, digital devices, and others.^
Unless you’re going to tell me that Ontario isn’t in Canada.

Thanks Casdon, I see your point. I find it unfortunate that some people (not you) will take any opportunity to portray the Labour Party as extreme far left, which they clearly are not.

LizzieDrip

Casdon no-one is saying that the Labour Party intend to get rid of private education. I was the ‘one poster’ on this thread who said I believe private education should be abolished as I believe it is elitist and divisive. A good state education for all is preferable IMO. I realise I’m a total outlier here, but that’s fine - as far as I’m aware we are still allowed to post personal opinions on GN (aren’t we?) even if they don’t conform to the consensus.

I know LizzieDrip, we all have our own views on this, but if you read the conversation some people have taken the discussion to extreme, the implication being, as I read it, that Labour’s proposals are leading towards their hidden agenda for the abolition of private education, which as a party I don’t believe they have at all.

Casdon no-one is saying that the Labour Party intend to get rid of private education. I was the ‘one poster’ on this thread who said I believe private education should be abolished as I believe it is elitist and divisive. A good state education for all is preferable IMO. I realise I’m a total outlier here, but that’s fine - as far as I’m aware we are still allowed to post personal opinions on GN (aren’t we?) even if they don’t conform to the consensus.

Can somebody tell me who it is that’s proposing getting rid of the private education sector, because it’s definitely not the Labour Party? This thread has taken a strange turn into fantasy I think.

DaisyAnneReturns

Germanshepherdsmum

Private education is available in both Finland and Canada.

Just thought this needs repeating and that this article needs reading by those repeating the misinformation.

www.aacrao.org/edge/emergent-news/private-education-is-not-prohibited-in-finland

Since August 2020, more than 18,000 users have shared on social media claiming that private education in Finland is “forbidden” , “eliminated” or “abolished” . In September 2021 it circulated again, but it is false: Finland does have private schools. What is prohibited is basic education for profit.

Maybee you really should stop repeating misinformation. It does your argument no good at all.

Apologies. Couldn’t reply last night as my iPad crashed. I had tried to find the podcast I’d heard it on but I’d listened to so many last week and couldn’t work out which one it was. When I have time I’ll plough my way through them. Can I just point out that I usually do do my homework but in this case just relied on something I’d heard that stuck in my mind. Suitably reprimanded I’ll back out of political discussions for a while till I have more time to double check everything I write.

MaizieD
I didn’t just scroll through this one. As I pointed out, I scrolled through posts about this from previous years and previous threads about this subject, which crop up regularly.
It’s always closing public schools or feepaying schools will improve the state of state education. But there’s never any viable proof and I haven’t seen any this time either.

Closing all private education will not improve state education. Improving state education leads to a reduction in independant/private schools and other education

Thanks DAR

Posters have suggested over and over again in the course of this thread that this could be the case... but it appears to be twisted into 'removing choice', or even 'not allowing people to be wealthy' 😆

Posted too soon. Please ignore errors.

Chardy

Germanshepherdsmum

Private education is available in both Finland and Canada.

"In Finland, education is publicly funded. Only two per cent of pupils in compulsory education attend schools that have a private provider. Also these schools are publicly funded and they cannot have any tuition fees.

Education from pre-primary to higher education, is free"
eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/overview

But they can charge for anything over and above the "basic education" the state actually pays them for. I'm sure our independant schools would welcome that.

This is a strawman argument. If you look at the countries that have the most independant schools are often the poorest countries and are countries that offer the least in state education.

Countries that have the lowest percentage of independant school are those that offer the best state education, of which Finland is thought to be one.

Closing all private education will not improve state education. Improving state education leads to a reduction in independant/private schools and other education.

There is no logical reason to stop people's choice that really is just another cultural war.

There is every reason to improve state education. Everything else is a distraction.

There are v

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.

I have scrolled right through 7 tedious pages of this topic, Mollygo and only ONE poster seems positively in favour of abolishing private schools.

So impassioned posts about 'choice' are really irrelevant when only one poster is advocating removing that choice. And was answered at the time...

Germanshepherdsmum

Private education is available in both Finland and Canada.

Just thought this needs repeating and that this article needs reading by those repeating the misinformation.

www.aacrao.org/edge/emergent-news/private-education-is-not-prohibited-in-finland

Since August 2020, more than 18,000 users have shared on social media claiming that private education in Finland is “forbidden” , “eliminated” or “abolished” . In September 2021 it circulated again, but it is false: Finland does have private schools. What is prohibited is basic education for profit.

Maybee you really should stop repeating misinformation. It does your argument no good at all.

Germanshepherdsmum

Private education is available in both Finland and Canada.

"In Finland, education is publicly funded. Only two per cent of pupils in compulsory education attend schools that have a private provider. Also these schools are publicly funded and they cannot have any tuition fees.

Education from pre-primary to higher education, is free"
eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/overview

Dinahmo

pennyhapenny

"In 2022–23, average private school fees across the UK were £15,200 in today’s prices (net of bursaries and scholarships). This is £7,200 or nearly 90% higher than state school spending per pupil, which was £8,000 in 2022–23 (including day-to-day and capital spending). The gap between private school fees and state school spending per pupil has more than doubled since 2010, when the gap was about 40% or £3,500."

Please correct my maths if I'm wrong...
x goes to private school and their parents pay £15,200 per year. x's parents save the taxpayer £8000 per year for state education.
Labour put VAT on private school fees and x's parents can no longer afford to pay the fees. x now has to go to a state school at a cost to the taxpayer of £8000 per year. The treasury will not be in receipt of any VAT payments from x's parents.
Extra cost to the taxpayer £8000.
In addition, private schools PAY VAT on all the goods and services they buy. IT equipment, new buildings, educational supplies. So if they have to close, the exchequer will not be receiving this money either.
The vast majority of private schools are not like Eton, Harrow, Westminster etc. They are not elitist and provide excellent education with pupils leaving to become badly needed doctors, engineers, lawyers etc. I could go on, but believe me, most are brilliant schools and many parents make substantial sacrifices so that their children can attend.

You are not understanding the way in which VAT works. The VAT paid on purchases is deducted from the VAT received on fees. The net amount is paid over to the exchequer, unless the input tax in one quarter exceeds the output tax, in which case the school would get a refund.

Suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers all collect VAT on taxable sales.

A simple example:

I make childrens' toys which I sell to a number of shops.

In the first quarter, assuming that I haven't made any sales, I claim back all the VAT that I have paid for my materials and expenses.

2nd quarter I am still building up my stock but I do sell a few toys on which I charge VAT. My input tax (on materials etc) still exceeds my output tax on sales and so I get a refund.

3rd quarter - coming up to Christmas. I sell a lot and charge VAT on each sale. The VAT on my inputs is less and so I pay over a large sum to the Exchequer.

The shops who are buying my toys will claim back the VAT that they've paid me. They will then charge the customer VAT on their selling price (which will of course have a markup). Because it's coming up to Christmas they have a good quarter and also pay over a chunk to the Exchequer.

VAT is a tax that moves up through the suppliers of the goods, the makers and then the retailers until it reaches the final purchases - ie the public who cannot claim it back.

It is different to the old system of purchase tax when the final purchase pays the tax and there are no interim collections.

I can asssure you it does not work this way in independent schools. We already know that, as it stands, there is no VAT to pay on school fees. BUT independent schools DO pay VAT for all the supplies and services they buy. They don't get any back.
It's 20% per usual, and 5% for advertising costs (due to charitable status). State schools do not pay VAT on supplies.

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?

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.

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.

Private education is available in both Finland and Canada.

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.

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.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?