Private schools ‘should pay their taxes’ - councillor

Worcester News: Private schools ‘should pay their taxes’ - councillor Private schools ‘should pay their taxes’ - councillor

PRIVATE schools have come under fire for getting discounts in business taxes – with a Worcestershire politician asking them to “stop hiding behind their charitable status”.

Councillor Richard Udall says the Royal Grammar School, the King’s School and St Mary’s Worcester have saved £338,000 in the last year by getting an automatic 80 per cent business rate relief.

Deputy Labour group leader Coun Udall has called on the Conservative leadership to ask them to pay higher rates.

During a debate over the issue at a full council meeting, Councillor Jane Potter, the cabinet member for education, hit back by saying the schools contribute £35 million to the county’s economy.

Coun Udall said: “These schools charge parents up to £11,370 a year for a child to attend school. They are only available to the very wealthiest people in society, but claim to be charities in order to receive this massive subsidy from the taxpayer.”

He said they should “pay their taxes” and asked Coun Potter to confirm if they got support from County Hall.

Coun Potter said: “Some 3,000 pupils go to these schools, saving the taxpayer £10.5 million it would otherwise cost to educate them.

“They bring over £35 million into the county’s economy, provide jobs for local people, and they are some of the best schools in the country. I’d actually like to thank them – £338,000 is a bargain for what they actually provide.”

After the meeting the King’s School produced a statement defending their record.

It read: “Any taxation benefits conferred by independent schools by virtue of their charitable status are more than outweighed by the net financial contribution to the taxpayer and the public good.”

It also said sports facilities are used by the local community and Bishop Perowne CE College, that they contribute to music, drama and arts, and that businesses benefit from the daily influx of parents and pupils to the city.

The Royal Grammar School also produced a defence, saying it employs 250 people and is a “major contributor” to the economy.

A statement from headteacher Andy Rattue said: “Our parents pay school fees out of taxed income and thus save Worcestershire County Council the cost of educating 1,200 children. In other words, by my estimate, RGS parents are actually saving the local authority £7.5 million per year by choosing to pay for their children’s education.”

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:09pm Tue 19 Feb 13

sugarlump says...

three oustanding schools whose contribution to Worcester (and beyond!) over many years would be difficult to measure. I sniff an old fashioned labour voice here - grow up man!!
three oustanding schools whose contribution to Worcester (and beyond!) over many years would be difficult to measure. I sniff an old fashioned labour voice here - grow up man!! sugarlump

3:22pm Tue 19 Feb 13

green49 says...

If tax is due PAY up the same as everybody else is supposed to.
Sick of the avoidance and evasion people and buisness get away with, i pay mine to contribute to the economy and so should everyone else.
If tax is due PAY up the same as everybody else is supposed to. Sick of the avoidance and evasion people and buisness get away with, i pay mine to contribute to the economy and so should everyone else. green49

3:34pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Leeolitina says...

"They are only available to the wealthiest in society" - What an outdated idea Councillor Udall has. An lot of students come from normal middle class families that are prepared to go without expensive holidays - give up smoking / drinking etc in order to give their child / children the best education. These parents have to pay for the privilege of doing so without getting any reduction in council tax - a proportion of which goes to councils for state education!
"They are only available to the wealthiest in society" - What an outdated idea Councillor Udall has. An lot of students come from normal middle class families that are prepared to go without expensive holidays - give up smoking / drinking etc in order to give their child / children the best education. These parents have to pay for the privilege of doing so without getting any reduction in council tax - a proportion of which goes to councils for state education! Leeolitina

4:29pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Doogie 46 says...

And yet this man has a letter in today`s WN claiming he is not fighting a class war. "Mehtinks he doth protest too much"
And yet this man has a letter in today`s WN claiming he is not fighting a class war. "Mehtinks he doth protest too much" Doogie 46

5:22pm Tue 19 Feb 13

MJI says...

Udall is a total knob!
.
They do deserve charatable status, all the private schools offer scolarships and bursaries.
.
Quite a few bright children from not well off families go to these schools.
.
Why should an opinionated idiot stop this happening?
.
If they suddenly had to find more money for tax the first thing to go would be this charity.
Udall is a total knob! . They do deserve charatable status, all the private schools offer scolarships and bursaries. . Quite a few bright children from not well off families go to these schools. . Why should an opinionated idiot stop this happening? . If they suddenly had to find more money for tax the first thing to go would be this charity. MJI

6:53pm Tue 19 Feb 13

New Kid on the Block says...

It is not just private Schools that are charities.
If Councillor Udall was to check more carefully he would find that there many other Schools that class as charities.
If I am correct in my understanding there are over 800 academies 8,100 foundation and voluntary schools and 94 sixth form colleges in England that are classed as charities.
(If I am wrong I am sure someone will soon correct me but Charities Commission Documents don't make for easy reading to those not from the legal profession.)
Is Councillor Udall suggesting that all these institutions should give up their charitable status?
If so who will make up for the extra costs they would face due to increased taxation.
It is not just private Schools that are charities. If Councillor Udall was to check more carefully he would find that there many other Schools that class as charities. If I am correct in my understanding there are over 800 academies 8,100 foundation and voluntary schools and 94 sixth form colleges in England that are classed as charities. (If I am wrong I am sure someone will soon correct me but Charities Commission Documents don't make for easy reading to those not from the legal profession.) Is Councillor Udall suggesting that all these institutions should give up their charitable status? If so who will make up for the extra costs they would face due to increased taxation. New Kid on the Block

7:32am Wed 20 Feb 13

Horatio One says...

A BMI Tax would be a much better idea.
A BMI Tax would be a much better idea. Horatio One

9:07am Wed 20 Feb 13

MJI says...

I would call him an idiot to his face, he must be the acrophical donkey.
.
When will he learn to shut up!
I would call him an idiot to his face, he must be the acrophical donkey. . When will he learn to shut up! MJI

12:20pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Endconreignforever says...

Again we hear from Worcester's Conservative elite that private schools are doing some great deed for the county.

Maybe if those children went to states schools the parents would have more of a stake in how the state schools are run and invest some of that money spent on private education in improving the state school system.

I was one of those children who was sent to a private school and my parents sacrificed alot to send me and if anything it has taught me is that education starts at home, My wife and children are state educated.

How dare they claim to be charities when they are not. If they contribute so much to society now then they would do even if they didn't have this concession. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greatest burden!!
Again we hear from Worcester's Conservative elite that private schools are doing some great deed for the county. Maybe if those children went to states schools the parents would have more of a stake in how the state schools are run and invest some of that money spent on private education in improving the state school system. I was one of those children who was sent to a private school and my parents sacrificed alot to send me and if anything it has taught me is that education starts at home, My wife and children are state educated. How dare they claim to be charities when they are not. If they contribute so much to society now then they would do even if they didn't have this concession. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greatest burden!! Endconreignforever

1:22pm Wed 20 Feb 13

New Kid on the Block says...

Perhaps this document from the House of Commons Library will be of interest.
www.parliament.uk/br
iefing-papers/SN0522
2.pdf

To quote from page 3

"In oral evidence to the Public Administration Committee in July 2008, Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, Chair of the Independent Schools Council, stated that, if charitable status were removed from independent schools, the cost to them at that time would be £100 million. She also gave evidence about other potential financial implications:

Q117 Kelvin Hopkins: By how much would fees have to go up?
Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas: It is not a huge amount; it is about £200 per pupil. If you abolished them you would have to find another £2.5 billion to educate the children from the independent sector in the state sector which might cause a crisis…
To pay for all that education might have an effect on the public finances. We estimate that £2.5 billion is saved by the independent sector in exchange for £100 million in tax breaks."


This means in effect giving tax breaks to private schools allows the state to spent an extra £2.5 billion on education.
Personally I consider that to be quite a bargain. Especially considering that the figures will have increased since this question was asked.

Also if you read more of this document you will see that Private Schools have to prove by their actions that they deserve charitable status it is not given automatically.

p.s. I was state educated like most but not all of my friends.
Perhaps this document from the House of Commons Library will be of interest. www.parliament.uk/br iefing-papers/SN0522 2.pdf To quote from page 3 "In oral evidence to the Public Administration Committee in July 2008, Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, Chair of the Independent Schools Council, stated that, if charitable status were removed from independent schools, the cost to them at that time would be £100 million. She also gave evidence about other potential financial implications: Q117 Kelvin Hopkins: By how much would fees have to go up? Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas: It is not a huge amount; it is about £200 per pupil. If you abolished them you would have to find another £2.5 billion to educate the children from the independent sector in the state sector which might cause a crisis… To pay for all that education might have an effect on the public finances. We estimate that £2.5 billion is saved by the independent sector in exchange for £100 million in tax breaks." This means in effect giving tax breaks to private schools allows the state to spent an extra £2.5 billion on education. Personally I consider that to be quite a bargain. Especially considering that the figures will have increased since this question was asked. Also if you read more of this document you will see that Private Schools have to prove by their actions that they deserve charitable status it is not given automatically. p.s. I was state educated like most but not all of my friends. New Kid on the Block

5:04pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Endconreignforever says...

It's a shame that £2.5bn doesn't produce the same results as a private education which is really designed for the elite of the country. (Most Politicians for expample)

Maybe if it translated into society better then it would be justified. Sorry still got a class system while there is choice for one group and no choice for the other.
It's a shame that £2.5bn doesn't produce the same results as a private education which is really designed for the elite of the country. (Most Politicians for expample) Maybe if it translated into society better then it would be justified. Sorry still got a class system while there is choice for one group and no choice for the other. Endconreignforever

5:57pm Wed 20 Feb 13

MJI says...

Endconreignforever wrote:
Again we hear from Worcester's Conservative elite that private schools are doing some great deed for the county.

Maybe if those children went to states schools the parents would have more of a stake in how the state schools are run and invest some of that money spent on private education in improving the state school system.

I was one of those children who was sent to a private school and my parents sacrificed alot to send me and if anything it has taught me is that education starts at home, My wife and children are state educated.

How dare they claim to be charities when they are not. If they contribute so much to society now then they would do even if they didn't have this concession. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greatest burden!!
Well if you see how many bursaries are done I reckon they are spending about 1/2 million a year on these.
.
That is a lot, and to be honest if someone sticks their politics into a forum name, should we take them seriously?
[quote][p][bold]Endconreignforever[/bold] wrote: Again we hear from Worcester's Conservative elite that private schools are doing some great deed for the county. Maybe if those children went to states schools the parents would have more of a stake in how the state schools are run and invest some of that money spent on private education in improving the state school system. I was one of those children who was sent to a private school and my parents sacrificed alot to send me and if anything it has taught me is that education starts at home, My wife and children are state educated. How dare they claim to be charities when they are not. If they contribute so much to society now then they would do even if they didn't have this concession. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the greatest burden!![/p][/quote]Well if you see how many bursaries are done I reckon they are spending about 1/2 million a year on these. . That is a lot, and to be honest if someone sticks their politics into a forum name, should we take them seriously? MJI

9:35pm Wed 20 Feb 13

New Kid on the Block says...

Endconreignforever wrote:
It's a shame that £2.5bn doesn't produce the same results as a private education which is really designed for the elite of the country. (Most Politicians for expample)

Maybe if it translated into society better then it would be justified. Sorry still got a class system while there is choice for one group and no choice for the other.
If that £2.5billion is not translated into results how is that the fault of the private schools?

Contrary to your statement you do have a choice . Stop moaning about those who you consider to have got a better deal in life than yourself and do something about it. There are a great many people in this country who started with nothing and have done very well for themselves. What they all have in common is they believed in themselves and worked hard for what they wanted.
In my time both in industry and local government I had some good bosses and some not so good ones. What the good ones all had in common was that they started at the bottom and worked their way up.
You had a good education, I assume that you would admit to being intelligent so what is stopping you?
[quote][p][bold]Endconreignforever[/bold] wrote: It's a shame that £2.5bn doesn't produce the same results as a private education which is really designed for the elite of the country. (Most Politicians for expample) Maybe if it translated into society better then it would be justified. Sorry still got a class system while there is choice for one group and no choice for the other.[/p][/quote]If that £2.5billion is not translated into results how is that the fault of the private schools? Contrary to your statement you do have a choice . Stop moaning about those who you consider to have got a better deal in life than yourself and do something about it. There are a great many people in this country who started with nothing and have done very well for themselves. What they all have in common is they believed in themselves and worked hard for what they wanted. In my time both in industry and local government I had some good bosses and some not so good ones. What the good ones all had in common was that they started at the bottom and worked their way up. You had a good education, I assume that you would admit to being intelligent so what is stopping you? New Kid on the Block

10:37pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Endconreignforever says...

Sorry New Kid On the Block!

I'm actually doing alright for myself personally thanks and degree level educated so not fighting for me.
Fighting for those that are worse off and in a perpetual status of life at the bottom.

When Private schools get handouts from the government under charitable status this disgusts me. Greed comes to mind. I have witnessed real poverty first hand believe me Private schools and their pupils don't need charity!

How can they call themselves a charity when they are not actually in need. I think the parents that allow this should be ashamed of themselves and the schools should also be ashamed.

Like I said some people have choice due to their circumstances and others have none due to theirs. I was sent to a private school and my siblings also but we are aware that private schools only serve the few and not the many.

And MJI ....how Boring!!
Sorry New Kid On the Block! I'm actually doing alright for myself personally thanks and degree level educated so not fighting for me. Fighting for those that are worse off and in a perpetual status of life at the bottom. When Private schools get handouts from the government under charitable status this disgusts me. Greed comes to mind. I have witnessed real poverty first hand believe me Private schools and their pupils don't need charity! How can they call themselves a charity when they are not actually in need. I think the parents that allow this should be ashamed of themselves and the schools should also be ashamed. Like I said some people have choice due to their circumstances and others have none due to theirs. I was sent to a private school and my siblings also but we are aware that private schools only serve the few and not the many. And MJI ....how Boring!! Endconreignforever

10:40pm Wed 20 Feb 13

Endconreignforever says...

I think I will vote Labour this year!!
I think I will vote Labour this year!! Endconreignforever

4:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

MJI says...

So people from average income families who get financial help for children to go to private schools isnot charity?
.
I think you will find it is.
.
BTW RGS is a VERY good school.
So people from average income families who get financial help for children to go to private schools isnot charity? . I think you will find it is. . BTW RGS is a VERY good school. MJI

8:03pm Thu 21 Feb 13

New Kid on the Block says...

MJI wrote:
So people from average income families who get financial help for children to go to private schools isnot charity?
.
I think you will find it is.
.
BTW RGS is a VERY good school.
It was a good school when I went there and by all accounts it still is, despite the fact it is no longer a state school.
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: So people from average income families who get financial help for children to go to private schools isnot charity? . I think you will find it is. . BTW RGS is a VERY good school.[/p][/quote]It was a good school when I went there and by all accounts it still is, despite the fact it is no longer a state school. New Kid on the Block

8:12pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Maggie Would says...

The private schools have had their knuckles rapped for not giving enough back to the community. As a result there are far more bursaries for bright pupils whose families simply could not afford to send them to private school. In a parallel measure, scholarships have been reduced to direct monies to the more disadvantaged.
Meanwhile, the private schools are investing more in local state schools, such as the all weather pitch at Bishop Perowne noted in the article.
.
BTW MJI, Kings is better. Just thought you should know.
The private schools have had their knuckles rapped for not giving enough back to the community. As a result there are far more bursaries for bright pupils whose families simply could not afford to send them to private school. In a parallel measure, scholarships have been reduced to direct monies to the more disadvantaged. Meanwhile, the private schools are investing more in local state schools, such as the all weather pitch at Bishop Perowne noted in the article. . BTW MJI, Kings is better. Just thought you should know. Maggie Would

1:11am Fri 22 Feb 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

If private schools lost their charitable status it would not stop parents sending their children to them. So the argument that RGS "saves" £7.5m is false!
If private schools lost their charitable status it would not stop parents sending their children to them. So the argument that RGS "saves" £7.5m is false! imustbeoldiwearacap

10:07am Fri 22 Feb 13

moonpig says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
If private schools lost their charitable status it would not stop parents sending their children to them. So the argument that RGS "saves" £7.5m is false!
It might not stop families sending children to the schools but the chances are there wouldn't be the schools to send them too.
People only ever stop to look at the fact that it costs £10k a year to send a child to private school and not what it actually costs to provide that education.There seems to be this misunderstanding that private schools are rolling in money which they splash around all over the place. This is not true - pay scales for staff are in line with state education workers. The money has to be very carefully managed and a surplus maintained for the years when numbers of children are low. You only have to look at the number of small independent schools that have closed or merged in recent years to realise that private schools are not unending pots of money. This is a little bit like the Amazon/Starbucks story. The organisations involved are getting attacked for doing nothing illegal and people ignore the benefits that they bring to our society.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: If private schools lost their charitable status it would not stop parents sending their children to them. So the argument that RGS "saves" £7.5m is false![/p][/quote]It might not stop families sending children to the schools but the chances are there wouldn't be the schools to send them too. People only ever stop to look at the fact that it costs £10k a year to send a child to private school and not what it actually costs to provide that education.There seems to be this misunderstanding that private schools are rolling in money which they splash around all over the place. This is not true - pay scales for staff are in line with state education workers. The money has to be very carefully managed and a surplus maintained for the years when numbers of children are low. You only have to look at the number of small independent schools that have closed or merged in recent years to realise that private schools are not unending pots of money. This is a little bit like the Amazon/Starbucks story. The organisations involved are getting attacked for doing nothing illegal and people ignore the benefits that they bring to our society. moonpig

1:48pm Fri 22 Feb 13

New Kid on the Block says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
If private schools lost their charitable status it would not stop parents sending their children to them. So the argument that RGS "saves" £7.5m is false!
Private Schools are not given charitable status they have to earn it.
If it was removed they would have no incentive to offer scholarships and bursaries or any other benefit to the wider community.
That would result in an increased burden on the state and a loss to those who currently benefit.

But of course there will always be those who think that they can make things better for those who have less by taking away from those who have more.
This misguided belief doesn't work and can't work. All that it can possibly achieve is a dumbed down mediocrity with a lack of desire to do well for oneself.
I don't begrudge others having what I cannot afford myself. There are many things I would like. If I work hard and don't waste my money I should be able to afford some of them.
But the increasing demands we are seeing that the more you own the more you get taxed can only act as a disincentive.
What we need is increased incentive to do well for yourself. Not punishment for those who do.

I shall now sit back and wait for the howls of anguish from those who believe that the government is better at spending our money than we are ourselves.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: If private schools lost their charitable status it would not stop parents sending their children to them. So the argument that RGS "saves" £7.5m is false![/p][/quote]Private Schools are not given charitable status they have to earn it. If it was removed they would have no incentive to offer scholarships and bursaries or any other benefit to the wider community. That would result in an increased burden on the state and a loss to those who currently benefit. But of course there will always be those who think that they can make things better for those who have less by taking away from those who have more. This misguided belief doesn't work and can't work. All that it can possibly achieve is a dumbed down mediocrity with a lack of desire to do well for oneself. I don't begrudge others having what I cannot afford myself. There are many things I would like. If I work hard and don't waste my money I should be able to afford some of them. But the increasing demands we are seeing that the more you own the more you get taxed can only act as a disincentive. What we need is increased incentive to do well for yourself. Not punishment for those who do. I shall now sit back and wait for the howls of anguish from those who believe that the government is better at spending our money than we are ourselves. New Kid on the Block

2:44pm Fri 22 Feb 13

gemma6 says...

I would just like to point out that bright students do not need to be privately educated to do well. They can and do achieve excellent results in state schools. Both my children gained 10 GCSEs with 4 As and A*s. One of them is now at Birmingham University studying Politics. Interestingly, It has been documented that students at Birmingham University who went to state school achieve better results, across the board, than students who attended private school.
I would just like to point out that bright students do not need to be privately educated to do well. They can and do achieve excellent results in state schools. Both my children gained 10 GCSEs with 4 As and A*s. One of them is now at Birmingham University studying Politics. Interestingly, It has been documented that students at Birmingham University who went to state school achieve better results, across the board, than students who attended private school. gemma6

5:26pm Fri 22 Feb 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

I have no particular axe to grind regarding private schools, but I do think that if they wish to retain their charitable status they are seen to be charitable!
I have no particular axe to grind regarding private schools, but I do think that if they wish to retain their charitable status they are seen to be charitable! imustbeoldiwearacap

11:48pm Fri 22 Feb 13

New Kid on the Block says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
I have no particular axe to grind regarding private schools, but I do think that if they wish to retain their charitable status they are seen to be charitable!
Charitable status is not automatic they have to convince the Charities
Commission that it is deserved.
In other words they have to be seen to be charitable.

I also agree with gemma6, bright enthusiastic pupils will always do well.
But there are people who would deny the chance for anyone to attend anything other than a state school.

In reply to Maggie Would I don't know about now, but when I went to school the Grammar was better academically than Kings; and we used to thrash them at Rugby. The Cricket team also had a not so secret weapon by the name of Imran Khan.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: I have no particular axe to grind regarding private schools, but I do think that if they wish to retain their charitable status they are seen to be charitable![/p][/quote]Charitable status is not automatic they have to convince the Charities Commission that it is deserved. In other words they have to be seen to be charitable. I also agree with gemma6, bright enthusiastic pupils will always do well. But there are people who would deny the chance for anyone to attend anything other than a state school. In reply to Maggie Would I don't know about now, but when I went to school the Grammar was better academically than Kings; and we used to thrash them at Rugby. The Cricket team also had a not so secret weapon by the name of Imran Khan. New Kid on the Block

1:11am Sat 23 Feb 13

Guy66 says...

Endconreignforever wrote:
I think I will vote Labour this year!!
Blinkers on- eyes closed - hearing muffled.
Bring back the idiots who nearly bankrupted this country.
Bring back the idiots who on the first PMQ's of the Conservative/Lim Dem government had the cheek to blame the Conservative/Lib Dems for the economic mess we are all in!
[quote][p][bold]Endconreignforever[/bold] wrote: I think I will vote Labour this year!![/p][/quote]Blinkers on- eyes closed - hearing muffled. Bring back the idiots who nearly bankrupted this country. Bring back the idiots who on the first PMQ's of the Conservative/Lim Dem government had the cheek to blame the Conservative/Lib Dems for the economic mess we are all in! Guy66

9:32am Sat 23 Feb 13

Maggie Would says...

New Kid on the Block wrote:
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
I have no particular axe to grind regarding private schools, but I do think that if they wish to retain their charitable status they are seen to be charitable!
Charitable status is not automatic they have to convince the Charities
Commission that it is deserved.
In other words they have to be seen to be charitable.

I also agree with gemma6, bright enthusiastic pupils will always do well.
But there are people who would deny the chance for anyone to attend anything other than a state school.

In reply to Maggie Would I don't know about now, but when I went to school the Grammar was better academically than Kings; and we used to thrash them at Rugby. The Cricket team also had a not so secret weapon by the name of Imran Khan.
Sorry New Kid, but since the merger with AO Kings has consistently beaten RGS in the league tables. Also, Kings has hammered RGS at rugby in recent times.
I'm afraid the merger with AO did little to enhance RGS's standing.
[quote][p][bold]New Kid on the Block[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: I have no particular axe to grind regarding private schools, but I do think that if they wish to retain their charitable status they are seen to be charitable![/p][/quote]Charitable status is not automatic they have to convince the Charities Commission that it is deserved. In other words they have to be seen to be charitable. I also agree with gemma6, bright enthusiastic pupils will always do well. But there are people who would deny the chance for anyone to attend anything other than a state school. In reply to Maggie Would I don't know about now, but when I went to school the Grammar was better academically than Kings; and we used to thrash them at Rugby. The Cricket team also had a not so secret weapon by the name of Imran Khan.[/p][/quote]Sorry New Kid, but since the merger with AO Kings has consistently beaten RGS in the league tables. Also, Kings has hammered RGS at rugby in recent times. I'm afraid the merger with AO did little to enhance RGS's standing. Maggie Would

12:50pm Sat 23 Feb 13

gemma6 says...

League tables are not a true measure of academic progress, valued added is.
League tables are not a true measure of academic progress, valued added is. gemma6

6:46pm Sat 23 Feb 13

imustbeoldiwearacap says...

Before the 2006 Charities Act, public schools were able automatically to claim charitable status, which brings in many tax benefits.

Since then, the Commission decided that they had to pass a public benefit test, showing they offered a good to wider society, not just those paying fees. This included bursaries for poorer students and sharing facilities with local state schools.

But the tribunal ruled that public schools could claim charity status if they showed they were offering only “token benefit for the poor”.

It said: “Once that low threshold is reached, what the trustees decide to do in the running of the school is a matter for them, subject to acting within the range within which trustees can properly act.”
Before the 2006 Charities Act, public schools were able automatically to claim charitable status, which brings in many tax benefits. Since then, the Commission decided that they had to pass a public benefit test, showing they offered a good to wider society, not just those paying fees. This included bursaries for poorer students and sharing facilities with local state schools. But the tribunal ruled that public schools could claim charity status if they showed they were offering only “token benefit for the poor”. It said: “Once that low threshold is reached, what the trustees [of a private school] decide to do in the running of the school is a matter for them, subject to acting within the range within which trustees can properly act.” imustbeoldiwearacap

6:32pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Europeanist65 says...

Given the amount of abuse on this issue, it is clear that it has touched a raw nerve and the abuse further exposes the bankruptcy of the arguments of those who oppose Richard Udall.

I feel Richard Udall is right, anyone or any organisation who is liable to pay tax must pay it. Why should there be more tax breaks on the privileges of wealthier parents?

Attendance at private schools for the vast majority depends upon the ability to pay. All children should have the right to an excellent education in this country, this should not be denied to ANY child on the basis of parental wealth or income, or anything else.

The "crumbs" of a few scholarships or charitable deeds relies on the whim of a few. An excellent education must be an entitlement for all, not just the few.

Buying a private education often buys a place at a excellent university and entry into a profession, and it also buys inequalities for the children of the poor and disadvantaged.

The cost of Charitable Status Tax Relief over the last 12 years has been £1.2 billion. Why should the hard-pressed parents living in Warndon and Dines Green subsidise the privileges of those who are wealthier.

The £2.5 billion that would be needed to educate those in the private school system in the state system would be raised in taxes and well spent. The influence of those families currently in private education would raise standards in the state sector.

Finland abolished private schools in the 1970s and ranks as having the best
results in Europe. We should follow that model.

Both of my kids attended the local comprehensive and received a very good education and I don't think private education would have made any difference.

Private schools are elitist, and are a major bedrock of the hideous inequalities that exist in British society.If we are to move towards a society where there is meritocracy, equality of opportunity and improvements in social mobility, then it is time for major change on private schools. Just needs a brave political soul to build on Richard's sentiments
Given the amount of abuse on this issue, it is clear that it has touched a raw nerve and the abuse further exposes the bankruptcy of the arguments of those who oppose Richard Udall. I feel Richard Udall is right, anyone or any organisation who is liable to pay tax must pay it. Why should there be more tax breaks on the privileges of wealthier parents? Attendance at private schools for the vast majority depends upon the ability to pay. All children should have the right to an excellent education in this country, this should not be denied to ANY child on the basis of parental wealth or income, or anything else. The "crumbs" of a few scholarships or charitable deeds relies on the whim of a few. An excellent education must be an entitlement for all, not just the few. Buying a private education often buys a place at a excellent university and entry into a profession, and it also buys inequalities for the children of the poor and disadvantaged. The cost of Charitable Status Tax Relief over the last 12 years has been £1.2 billion. Why should the hard-pressed parents living in Warndon and Dines Green subsidise the privileges of those who are wealthier. The £2.5 billion that would be needed to educate those in the private school system in the state system would be raised in taxes and well spent. The influence of those families currently in private education would raise standards in the state sector. Finland abolished private schools in the 1970s and ranks as having the best results in Europe. We should follow that model. Both of my kids attended the local comprehensive and received a very good education and I don't think private education would have made any difference. Private schools are elitist, and are a major bedrock of the hideous inequalities that exist in British society.If we are to move towards a society where there is meritocracy, equality of opportunity and improvements in social mobility, then it is time for major change on private schools. Just needs a brave political soul to build on Richard's sentiments Europeanist65

12:22pm Mon 25 Feb 13

MJI says...

Maggie Would wrote:
The private schools have had their knuckles rapped for not giving enough back to the community. As a result there are far more bursaries for bright pupils whose families simply could not afford to send them to private school. In a parallel measure, scholarships have been reduced to direct monies to the more disadvantaged.
Meanwhile, the private schools are investing more in local state schools, such as the all weather pitch at Bishop Perowne noted in the article.
.
BTW MJI, Kings is better. Just thought you should know.
My daughter would dispute that.
.
BTW she is on a hefty bursary, we could not afford the fees otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]Maggie Would[/bold] wrote: The private schools have had their knuckles rapped for not giving enough back to the community. As a result there are far more bursaries for bright pupils whose families simply could not afford to send them to private school. In a parallel measure, scholarships have been reduced to direct monies to the more disadvantaged. Meanwhile, the private schools are investing more in local state schools, such as the all weather pitch at Bishop Perowne noted in the article. . BTW MJI, Kings is better. Just thought you should know.[/p][/quote]My daughter would dispute that. . BTW she is on a hefty bursary, we could not afford the fees otherwise. MJI

12:29pm Mon 25 Feb 13

MJI says...

Europeanist65 wrote:
Given the amount of abuse on this issue, it is clear that it has touched a raw nerve and the abuse further exposes the bankruptcy of the arguments of those who oppose Richard Udall.

I feel Richard Udall is right, anyone or any organisation who is liable to pay tax must pay it. Why should there be more tax breaks on the privileges of wealthier parents?

Attendance at private schools for the vast majority depends upon the ability to pay. All children should have the right to an excellent education in this country, this should not be denied to ANY child on the basis of parental wealth or income, or anything else.

The "crumbs" of a few scholarships or charitable deeds relies on the whim of a few. An excellent education must be an entitlement for all, not just the few.

Buying a private education often buys a place at a excellent university and entry into a profession, and it also buys inequalities for the children of the poor and disadvantaged.

The cost of Charitable Status Tax Relief over the last 12 years has been £1.2 billion. Why should the hard-pressed parents living in Warndon and Dines Green subsidise the privileges of those who are wealthier.

The £2.5 billion that would be needed to educate those in the private school system in the state system would be raised in taxes and well spent. The influence of those families currently in private education would raise standards in the state sector.

Finland abolished private schools in the 1970s and ranks as having the best
results in Europe. We should follow that model.

Both of my kids attended the local comprehensive and received a very good education and I don't think private education would have made any difference.

Private schools are elitist, and are a major bedrock of the hideous inequalities that exist in British society.If we are to move towards a society where there is meritocracy, equality of opportunity and improvements in social mobility, then it is time for major change on private schools. Just needs a brave political soul to build on Richard's sentiments
I see you have problems reading.
.
People who pay for private education are stll paying taxes which pay for state education.
.
There is no tax relief for the parents to the value of a state education.
.
Lets say 20% are privately educated.
.
This means for each state pupil there is another 25% available due to the other child being in a private school.
.
I went to a good state school in a different part of the country, back when teachers were allowed to control their classes.
[quote][p][bold]Europeanist65[/bold] wrote: Given the amount of abuse on this issue, it is clear that it has touched a raw nerve and the abuse further exposes the bankruptcy of the arguments of those who oppose Richard Udall. I feel Richard Udall is right, anyone or any organisation who is liable to pay tax must pay it. Why should there be more tax breaks on the privileges of wealthier parents? Attendance at private schools for the vast majority depends upon the ability to pay. All children should have the right to an excellent education in this country, this should not be denied to ANY child on the basis of parental wealth or income, or anything else. The "crumbs" of a few scholarships or charitable deeds relies on the whim of a few. An excellent education must be an entitlement for all, not just the few. Buying a private education often buys a place at a excellent university and entry into a profession, and it also buys inequalities for the children of the poor and disadvantaged. The cost of Charitable Status Tax Relief over the last 12 years has been £1.2 billion. Why should the hard-pressed parents living in Warndon and Dines Green subsidise the privileges of those who are wealthier. The £2.5 billion that would be needed to educate those in the private school system in the state system would be raised in taxes and well spent. The influence of those families currently in private education would raise standards in the state sector. Finland abolished private schools in the 1970s and ranks as having the best results in Europe. We should follow that model. Both of my kids attended the local comprehensive and received a very good education and I don't think private education would have made any difference. Private schools are elitist, and are a major bedrock of the hideous inequalities that exist in British society.If we are to move towards a society where there is meritocracy, equality of opportunity and improvements in social mobility, then it is time for major change on private schools. Just needs a brave political soul to build on Richard's sentiments[/p][/quote]I see you have problems reading. . People who pay for private education are stll paying taxes which pay for state education. . There is no tax relief for the parents to the value of a state education. . Lets say 20% are privately educated. . This means for each state pupil there is another 25% available due to the other child being in a private school. . I went to a good state school in a different part of the country, back when teachers were allowed to control their classes. MJI

1:19pm Mon 25 Feb 13

New Kid on the Block says...

imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:
Before the 2006 Charities Act, public schools were able automatically to claim charitable status, which brings in many tax benefits.

Since then, the Commission decided that they had to pass a public benefit test, showing they offered a good to wider society, not just those paying fees. This included bursaries for poorer students and sharing facilities with local state schools.

But the tribunal ruled that public schools could claim charity status if they showed they were offering only “token benefit for the poor”.

It said: “Once that low threshold is reached, what the trustees decide to do in the running of the school is a matter for them, subject to acting within the range within which trustees can properly act.”
I am afraid you are completely wrong.
Private Schools need to show MORE than token benefit.
http://www.parliamen
t.uk/briefing-papers
/SN05222
To quote the findings of the Charities Commission -
In its ruling, the tribunal confirmed that private schools, as educational charities, have to demonstrate a wider public benefit, beyond that to their own pupils. And it confirmed that charities have to provide "more than a token benefit" to the poor.

Also what about Tudor Grange. As an academy this school is also entitled to charitable status.
Blessed Edward Oldcorne is a voluntary aided school and I believe is also eligible for charitable status.

Any comments please.
[quote][p][bold]imustbeoldiwearacap[/bold] wrote: Before the 2006 Charities Act, public schools were able automatically to claim charitable status, which brings in many tax benefits. Since then, the Commission decided that they had to pass a public benefit test, showing they offered a good to wider society, not just those paying fees. This included bursaries for poorer students and sharing facilities with local state schools. But the tribunal ruled that public schools could claim charity status if they showed they were offering only “token benefit for the poor”. It said: “Once that low threshold is reached, what the trustees [of a private school] decide to do in the running of the school is a matter for them, subject to acting within the range within which trustees can properly act.”[/p][/quote]I am afraid you are completely wrong. Private Schools need to show MORE than token benefit. http://www.parliamen t.uk/briefing-papers /SN05222 To quote the findings of the Charities Commission - In its ruling, the tribunal confirmed that private schools, as educational charities, have to demonstrate a wider public benefit, beyond that to their own pupils. And it confirmed that charities have to provide "more than a token benefit" to the poor. Also what about Tudor Grange. As an academy this school is also entitled to charitable status. Blessed Edward Oldcorne is a voluntary aided school and I believe is also eligible for charitable status. Any comments please. New Kid on the Block

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree