Are you confident about supporting charities?

‘Educational purposes’ is one of the three original objectives of charitable status, the others being the relief of poverty and the propagation of religion. Health, welfare, life-saving, and other good causes have been added to the mix over time so there is a variety of ways in which commercial organisations can purport to be serving the community in a charitable way.

To the extent that fee-paying schools take pressure off the state education system, and do indeed in many cases provide resources that the state sector cannot match, charitable relief has its plus points.

I am aware that the Charity Commission does now keep a more watchful eye on the correct use of charitable status but it is a very wide field and, from a public policy point of view, it would be madness to curtail or choke off charitable endeavour when so many essential services rely on voluntary and charitable input that the state would struggle to supply so economically and effectively.

I agree with other commenters that the input to output ratio for many major charities is a cause for concern. I see no need for the competition that appears to take place between charities with similar aims and objectives. How many cancer charities do we need? Why are there not any pan-European cancer charities ensuring that research is optimised instead of being siloed? Should not the ultimate aim of all charities be to become extinct through achievement of their purposes? Self-preservation is a powerful motive that infects the executives of all organisations especially charities; I have never heard one say “our job is now done; we can leave the rest to others”.

“fee-paying schools take pressure off the state education system,“. But they also put pressure on the state system by taking teaching staff. On balance I am in favour of a private educational system running alongside a state system. We should have the choice as to how we have our children educated. I would, however, suggest removing their charitable status and have them stand on their own feet financially, unless there are persuasive arguments to the contrary.

But don’t only the really wealthy have such a choice?

I have a list of 10 private day schools that charge between £12k and £17k a year. You do not have to be “really wealthy” to afford this. If you believe that going without other discretionary purchases – new car, holidays, for example will benefit your child then I believe you should have the choice. If a local state school has a poor record why should you have to penalise your child by sending them there, if you can manage to afford an alternative?

I’m not sure most families have £17,000 per annum to spare, plus the associated costs – uniform, special kit, activities, days out and several children. With three children, that could very easily add up to £60,000 per year and I think most people would see that as only a really wealthy option.

The big danger – the threat, if you like – of having private education is that it allows those who wield power and influence over politicians to ignore the desperate cash-starved situation of the state sector.

The range is from £12k. Some may well be prepared to make a sacrifice in their living standard to support their child. Indeed, they already do as these schools seem to prosper. Should we remove all choices from how people spend the money they have – private healthcare, size of house, holidays………. ?

MPs may resist influence when at the 2017 general election 52% went to comprehensives, 17% to grammars and 29% were privately educated. (That leaves 2%, presumably uneducated?). I’d suggest it is money that is influence, not whether you are state or privately educated.

However, my contention is we should be allowed choice in education.

I suggest we take this discussion somewhere else and get back to discussion about charities.

Many private schools have charitable status. 🙂 Examples of charities, and a discussion about their role, is pertinent to a Convo headed “Are you confident about supporting charities?” although I suspect this particular line of discussion, introduced quite reasonably by FrisbyG, has reached a natural conclusion.

George: as Malcolm has pointed out this topic is about charities and supporting them. I would argue the topic of private schools (and private health care are both completely relevant to the topic header.

From the topic header perspective (Are you confident about supporting charities?) it then becomes integral to the debate as to what specific charities do and how they conduct themselves and – for want of better terminology – how they influence society.

I think some corrections to the debate arguments are also needed. Private day schools are in decline nationally. They have been since 2008, and may recover, but that’s currently unknown.

The schools that remain are also failing to meet more rigorous standards introduced three years ago across a range of areas, including quality of teaching and leadership.

Only 60 per cent of private schools inspected this year (2018) have been judged as good or better, the figures show. Three years ago, three-quarters (75 per cent) of schools were good or better.

“The decline in inspection outcomes for independent schools has been quite stark,” said Ofsted’s report.

But these schools benefit from charity status. As a letter to the Guardian in February this year noted: “It is ridiculously inappropriate to compare “luxury homes, cars, exotic holidays” with the fees for private schools. Good education is not a luxury but an essential provision that needs to be equally available to all children if we are ever to have a properly functioning society. Parents are not to be blamed for seeking the best for their children, but the private school system encourages the wealthiest to do this at the expense of the great majority. For example, 14% of the teaching force, trained mainly at public expense, is employed in schools that teach 6.5% of the nation’s children.

Second, the fact that private schools meet the criteria required for charitable status is merely a reminder that these criteria are inadequate. The charitable status enjoyed by private schools represents a subsidy to the wealthiest from the majority of taxpayers, whose own schools are poorly resourced.”

The continued existence of private schooling perpetuates a class-based stereotype that permeates and influences society. Parents do not buy better education, either, as OFSTED has revealed. What they do buy, however, is exclusivity, membership of a small elite and acceptance by their wealthy peers.

Should they continue to have charitable status seems to me a very valid question.

My earlier proposal on private schools was “I would, however, suggest removing their charitable status and have them stand on their own feet financially” which seemed a very relevant comment when discussing “supporting charities”.

As is often the case with Convos comments can lead to discussions around a point and, providing they do not overwhelm a Convo and lose sight of the original theme then I do not see “shutting the discussion” down as appropriate. When we discuss the appropriateness of supporting any charity we will inevitably, and quite properly, examine what that charity does and how deserving it is. If we do not do that then there is, it seems to me, little purpose in this sort of discussion.