Morning:
6°c
Private school fees could rise to help poorer pupils
Tim Ross, Education Correspondent17 Dec 2008
MIDDLE-CLASS parents could face sharply rising private school fees to subsidise places for poorer children under new laws.
The Charity Commission has told independent schools to offer more bursaries and extra classes for working class pupils or face severe financial penalties. Experts warn that some schools will have to increase fees to cover the costs of such measures, while others may be forced to close. Changes in the law mean private schools must prove they operate for the wider "public benefit" or lose their charitable status and associated tax breaks.
The Charity Commission told headteachers this means offering free places, access to lessons and use of sports and arts facilities to children whose parents cannot afford the fees.
Dame Suzi Leather, chairwoman of the watchdog, said school charities charging high fees should find "imaginative" ways to pass the test. "Such charities must ensure they provide sufficient opportunity to benefit for those who cannot afford the fees," she said. In new guidance, the Commission said there are many ways to comply with the new rules, but offering subsidised places is the "obvious and, in many cases, the simplest" solution.
Other schemes could include:
●Allowing state school pupils access to swimming pools, astro-pitches and concert venues.
●Giving state school pupils the chance to join certain lessons.
●A private school sponsoring a state-funded city academy.
●Helping prepare state pupils for Oxbridge entrance interviews. The watchdog was clear that schools may need to increase fees for existing parents to fund these activities. The guidance said:
"Sometimes the fees charged to those able to afford them are relatively high, but this is part of a deliberate pricing strategy aimed at generating revenue to cover the cost of concessions.
"Trustees might decide to increase general fee levels to offer subsidies to those unable to pay the full cost."
But Andrew Grant, head of St Albans School, warned fees must not rise so high that existing parents are priced out. Mr Grant, chairman-elect of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference of leading private schools, said: "What the Charity Commission has got to recognise is that without fee-paying parents there won't be enough money for bursaries anyway.
"Any independent schools, other than those that are fantastically well-endowed, have got to be attractive to fee-paying parents who are willing to stump up quite a lot."
He said some smaller schools would be forced to increase fees to fund bursaries but most - including his own school - already had money set aside for such measures.
Sue Fieldman, from the Good Schools Guide, said the watchdog's tough stance came at "the worst time possible" for many schools.
"There is little room for manoeuvre - and I can see it being the nail in the coffin for some private schools, especially some of the smaller ones that are already coping with diminishing numbers," she said.
"This could be as serious for private schools as the credit crunch. At the end of the day, it is the parents who will suffer."
Reader views (22)
I totally agree with Scott.Practically all the places at our only local state Grammar School will be taken up by people who could afford private schools, and whose children have benefitted from private primary education. This leaves no hope for less well off children. I'll probably have to opt out and teach my children at home.
- Julie, London, Bromley, Kent, 26/02/2009 11:35
Report abuse
YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!! Why shouldn't those who have money - pay for smaller class sizes/more specialized attention for their children if they can? Just like they can afford to buy bigger houses, cars, etc. etc. It's a PERSONAL choice and it's all relative. (Is a bigger house BETTER? Does going to a private school ensure a successful BETTER life?) Maybe their children fit better in that environment, which by the way, is not all snobbery. (I come from a background of working in these schools and not being able to afford it for my own children.) I agree that private schools should not be made to 'subsidize' places for poorer pupils.
- Dj, Derbyshire, UK, 10/01/2009 00:54
Report abuse
‘At the end of the day it all comes down to simply doing the best you can for your children.’
No, this is wrong. At the end of the day it all comes down to simply doing the best WE can for ALL OUR children.
If, because of self-centered selfishness, we do not do this then elitism, snobbery and unfairness will continue to fester and compound social instability.
- John, London, 18/12/2008 11:27
Report abuse
I think Chrissie's comments sum it up nicely. Well done Chrissie, I applaud you.
At the end of the day it all comes down to simply doing the best you can for your children. All you have to do is look at the state of most inner London state schools and realise they are not fit for purpose. I should know as I went to one where I suffered systematic bullying and was the victim of racially targeted abuse (and btw, I'm white). The teachers done nothing. If I have children there is no way I will put them through that.
Labour has squandered billions on consultants, quangos, reports etc and has still failed to address the actual cause of the problems in the state education system, and that is simply there are kids who don't want to learn and who have parents who couldn't care less. So instead they take the easier alternative and launch further attacks on the the private sector.
When will this country/government learn.
- Scott, London, 18/12/2008 09:51
Report abuse
It is amusing to see the venomous indignity and outrage of the middle class whenever there is the merest perceived threat to their little Tabitha or Toby having to share the playground with those horrid vulgar offspring from the local council estate.
It is just soooo unfair. Maybe they should write furious letters to the Daily Mail and then ring up Nick Ferrari to complain about this persecution.
In the meantime let us pray that the Conservative Party wins the next election and then maybe the lower classes will stop getting ideas above their station.
- John, London, 18/12/2008 09:37
Report abuse
I really struggled to send my 4 children to private school - so much so we didnt have enough money for food - we got stuff out of bargain bins, My kids never had new clothes - only from charity shops and no holidays!! I was a disabled single parent with no financal imput from their father! I got nothing from the state. I worked 2 jobs and really busted a gut!! Iv not heard of anyone struggling the way I did. The school was good to my kids and now they are uni grads!
So why should the state school kids get free lessons!! Cant their parents bust a gut??
- Chrissie, London, 17/12/2008 22:56
Report abuse
I am concerned that if parents paying to send there children to private schools can no longer affort to do so there will be more children entering into the state school system. Does that mean my council taxes will then go up as we will need more state school spaces and teaches to cope with the influx? Does it mean my daughter ma have to potentially travel further to get to a school as there is too much demand on the schools closest to our home?
I agree that these schools should not be registered as charities - but I also do not think they should be taxed in the same way as a commercial enterprise. Despite the 'elitist' element that some think they have they still must save the tax payer more money than they cost.
- Janine, London, 17/12/2008 21:11
Report abuse
Why should people who send their children to private schools subsidise those who can't afford to do so? Government should create (have created) top class education for all so that no-one need scrape and save to get their children properly educated. Education was far far better in this country fifty/sixty one hundred years ago than it is now. Successive governments have smashed it to the ground with the result we have generations of morons with a few aspiring to better things but unable to afford it. Get to grips with the fundamentals Noo Labour, instead of wiping off your responsibilities and your grubby hands on the middle classes again.
- Judith C, London, UK, 17/12/2008 17:46
Report abuse
Private education is the same as private health care – it is all about jumping the queue. Those who can afford it ensure their children have a privileged start and ignore their poorer neighbours. They are very articulate in their justification, but in the end it all comes down to money. Ultimately, this selfish mentality reinforces snobbery and unfairness. The poor are demonised in the process. It is all part and parcel of England’s class system.
- John, London, 17/12/2008 17:39
Report abuse
If Labour want to punish the better off - or in many cases those who are not necessarily better off but who make a decision to forego other stuff for the sake of their children's education - then why can they not at least be honest about it instead of concocting this disingenuous nonsense about the schools need to act more charitably ? The private schools already provide a huge service to the community by reducing the burden on the state schools.
This government cannot present the case honestly because the Brown Politburo have an innate aversion to honesty .
- Andrew, london, 17/12/2008 17:07
Report abuse
clearly if any orgainsation claims the tax benefits of a charity, it has to clearly be acting as such and therefore offer a significant number of bursuries - not just a token few.
fair comment from the charity commission - hardly radical class politics..
school fees will reduce as per any market, when demand does not meet supply...
- Martin_Clerkenwell, london, 17/12/2008 16:21
Report abuse
We have had 10 years of "EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION" which have cost us billions and billions. It has not worked so what to Labour do - have another bash at the private sector. Why - becacause the disparity in the quality of education embarasses him. Parents who put their children through private education pay taxes to pay for the state sector. LW and Mick of London - parents who send their children to the private sector do save the taxpayer millions - because the state does not have to pay for their education! The question you should be asking is why do parents feel it necessary to spend the money on a private education?? Because those parents are not satisifed with the alternative.
- Jeremy E, London, 17/12/2008 16:17
Report abuse
LW, yes they do, a simple calculation.
As for the meritocracy, you hope for, this will be the first in the civilised world. Everybody wants a meritocracy but this does not exist, people are not treated equally, women colour etc. In the meantime should we just bash those people who struggle but do the best for their children rather than let them suffer in the mediocre schools because of where they live.
Perhaps if other people can forego their nights out, holidays and cups of coffee we may have more educated and focused children. Private education is in most peoples' grasp but they would rather not sacrifice their lifestyles, which is their choice but they shouldn't then hammer people who do sacrifice theirs. Private edcuation is not the preserve of the rich, although some schools may be, but the alternative for those whose wish to ensure that their children do aspire.
- Richard, London, 17/12/2008 15:55
Report abuse
Maybe the fact that my children go to a private school should mean that I get a tax break if private schools are forced to increase the school fees - as a tax payer I am also funding the state system a well!
If Hounslow had a decent number of primary and secondary schools in the first place, then maybe I wouldnt have had to make a decision to send my child to a private school, for me it was a case of necessity over choice!
- Raminder Bhalla, Hounslow, 17/12/2008 15:46
Report abuse
after 10 years as a governor of a local state school and seeing the money wasted by consultants and reports with nothing extra reaching the children. we have given up on 'must have' things to send our daughter to a fee paying school, What needs to be concidered is that if these schools do close the state is going to have to build more schools to look after the 50,000 children who go to them, As we parents are still paying for the state schools too.
- Ed, london, 17/12/2008 13:55
Report abuse
Richard, how do you know that people who send their kids to private schools save the state millions of pounds? Any imagined 'savings' of this nature are more than cancelled out by the social inequalities that private schools foster. Private education has no place in a meritocracy, in which every one should be able to entertain the same ambitions and hopes, no matter what his or her background or family income.
- Lw, London, 17/12/2008 13:30
Report abuse
Private schools are not charities and should not be treated as such. They should pay their taxes like everyone else. Charitable status is just a scam used by the rich to milk the taxpayer.
- Mick, London, England, 17/12/2008 13:17
Report abuse
Why would anybody want to even send their child to a private school? They are run on criminal lines and represent all that is worse about English snobbery. You hear about these would-be genteel educational rip-offs in Evelyn Waugh, Wooster, etc. and laugh at the caricature but the real thing's a million times worse.
- John, London, 17/12/2008 13:13
Report abuse
Communism at it's best. Lowest common denominator.
- Frank, Home Counties, England, 17/12/2008 11:22
Report abuse
Good old Suzy Leather re-igniting the class war, was that why she was made a Dame by nu-labour?
- Tom, Watford (UK), 17/12/2008 10:57
Report abuse
Many parents face struggles. Simply by sending your children to a private school does not mean you have a bottomless pit.
The decision is usually based on what is the best for your child. Sending a child to a private school often entials compromises in spending in other areas.
Bursaries are often given to children who join the school later in their school lives, it does not mean that their parents are not as able to meet the fees with any greater difficulty than many parents who already have children at the school but it is more of an exercise in adding to the school budget by reducing fees but increasing the total budget as overheads are reduced by the spread.
Given the level of spending on the education system, by the government, surely the parents of children at private schools should be given a tax reduction for saving the state millions of pounds, thus encouraging others away from relying on the state. The thinking and the system is full of anomalies.
Why is it that parents who sacrifice their own lifestyle and then punished by higher fees, perhaps the Charities Commissioner needs to a little more searching before coming to such balck and white conclusions.
- Richard, London, 17/12/2008 10:47
Report abuse
Sound like a bright idea in this climate. Bet it doesnt rightly see the light of day.
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, 17/12/2008 10:27
Report abuse
