School Funding
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
School Funding
First Time Buyer
Legal advice is just what is says advice. This advice has not been tested in court more importantly judges tend to look the new legislation to interpret the what Parliament intended. Look what happen in Warwickshire when they tried to use the Greenwich Judgement ,The new school admission code overode it.On a more positive note:
The Independent Schools Council have received legal advice on their situation to the effect that the Charities Commission have provided guidance which is not in accordance with the law.
Education is a charitable activity based on case law going back to 1891 (Sycamore you were mistaken, and LoopyLou was correct).
-
FirstTimeBuyer
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:34 am
- Location: S East
Re: School Funding
piers3 wrote
As I explained in detail in an earlier post, some of which directly addressed you, the petty £200+ per pupil per annum that the tax breaks provide is more than paid out in bursaries. The taxpayers' money is funding bursaries. The schools need the charitable status in order to continue as schools, not the money. If they lose it, they will cease to exist. Read earlier post again if you still fail to see the point.
Piers3 then wrote
If I asserted that because The London Oratory School could achieve a certain level of GCSE results, that all the State schools should do so, you would think I was delusional. Your assertion re bursaries is equally risible.
Some more sub-11+ maths....
50% bursaries would mean a revenue shortfall of £5m-£10m per annum at an average secondary school (see yesterday's post on CH). Say £5m for a day school.
Sell the school property. OK. Invest the proceeds. Bank rates are rubbish and possibly so are banks, so we'll put in 10-year gilts, which yield 3.7%. To make £5m each year we will need to invest well, £135m (£5m / 0.037). Do we have
yet?
It gets better. Not only do most schools not have a handy £135m in "school property", but in the current market they might have a few problems shifting it. But let's for fun assume they do and can.
The school will be leasing (that means renting) it back. You will need to pay a market rent which on commercial property to a good credit would be about 6.5%. But hold on, our tenant is a charity in a none-too-solid business, with all sorts of disreputable politicians and fellow-travellers trying to do away with them. Got to be at least 8% (in the current climate probably more). That's £10.8m per annum based on a conservative 8% (£135m @ 8%).
Piers3 your hare-brained scheme would produce a net loss of £5.8m per annum (£10.8m less £5m). Do you work for RBS perchance?
Go and stand in the corner!
There is no hidden pot of gold available for education.
When confronted with something you don't like, do you have a habit of putting your hands over your ears and singing loudly> "la-la-la-la"?Social Engineering?? What do you call taking taxpayers money to fund establishments few on average incomes can afford?
As I explained in detail in an earlier post, some of which directly addressed you, the petty £200+ per pupil per annum that the tax breaks provide is more than paid out in bursaries. The taxpayers' money is funding bursaries. The schools need the charitable status in order to continue as schools, not the money. If they lose it, they will cease to exist. Read earlier post again if you still fail to see the point.
Piers3 then wrote
I will leave the minutiae of the politics of envy to those who enjoy that sort of thing.The changes to the Charitable status has been Labours policy for about 30 years (do keep up).
Yesterday it was everybody should do like Christ's Hospital. Now it's that the Indie schools should perform like Eton. Because the two richest schools in England can afford to do something it doesn't mean that all the other schools can. That's just naive or childish.If these schools were so well run they could plan for more busaries (like Eton is doing)
If I asserted that because The London Oratory School could achieve a certain level of GCSE results, that all the State schools should do so, you would think I was delusional. Your assertion re bursaries is equally risible.
This is priceless, and easily my favourite bit of your post......The schools can sell their properties on sale and lease back and use the funds so set up a charitable endowment to fund bursaries (50% of available place should the target) .
Some more sub-11+ maths....
50% bursaries would mean a revenue shortfall of £5m-£10m per annum at an average secondary school (see yesterday's post on CH). Say £5m for a day school.
Sell the school property. OK. Invest the proceeds. Bank rates are rubbish and possibly so are banks, so we'll put in 10-year gilts, which yield 3.7%. To make £5m each year we will need to invest well, £135m (£5m / 0.037). Do we have
yet?It gets better. Not only do most schools not have a handy £135m in "school property", but in the current market they might have a few problems shifting it. But let's for fun assume they do and can.
The school will be leasing (that means renting) it back. You will need to pay a market rent which on commercial property to a good credit would be about 6.5%. But hold on, our tenant is a charity in a none-too-solid business, with all sorts of disreputable politicians and fellow-travellers trying to do away with them. Got to be at least 8% (in the current climate probably more). That's £10.8m per annum based on a conservative 8% (£135m @ 8%).
Piers3 your hare-brained scheme would produce a net loss of £5.8m per annum (£10.8m less £5m). Do you work for RBS perchance?
Go and stand in the corner!
There is no hidden pot of gold available for education.
Exams are formidable for the best prepared. The greatest fool may ask what the wisest man cannot answer.
-
T.i.p.s.y
FTB, I wouldn't waste your time. Some people can't bear to be confronted with facts as it doesn't suit their agenda. Ironic really that accusations of sticking ones fingers in ones ears was directed at the likes of us. The last time I came across such narrow minds was on my initial Eton thread. There are some who cannot cope with the world not swooning at everything they say and do!
Come on side-kick, we have genuine and deserving cases to deal with!
Come on side-kick, we have genuine and deserving cases to deal with!
-
Sassie'sDad
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:36 pm
- Location: Rugby
I'm a Johnny come lately to this "debate" but really let us face facts please; there is absolutely no prospect of Independant Schools loosing their charitable status. The very assertion that they might, or ought is ridiculous! All schools producing educated, thinking beings are contributing to society and the individuals who make up that society.
The state postures that it can do anything it legislates but it manifestly cannot. The big state is dead just as globalisation is. - I deliberately do not use Capital Letters.- It is futile and as powerless as Brown and his administration to assert that Bankers will not receive their contractual pension rights! Down with tyranny! Their Administration and that of America has presided over the economic catastrophe. They have not simply stood on the sidlines and watched it happen. No; like the drunken Captain asleep on the bridge, they have presided over, nay encouraged and sponsored greed and unscrupulousness, nay immoral and unethical behaviour. They have actually propagated their and our downfall and then had the gall to politic and worm their way out of it.
Do we really look to America, or Sorros, or Brown or Blair or Obamah to save the world? If so then God help us all!
The state postures that it can do anything it legislates but it manifestly cannot. The big state is dead just as globalisation is. - I deliberately do not use Capital Letters.- It is futile and as powerless as Brown and his administration to assert that Bankers will not receive their contractual pension rights! Down with tyranny! Their Administration and that of America has presided over the economic catastrophe. They have not simply stood on the sidlines and watched it happen. No; like the drunken Captain asleep on the bridge, they have presided over, nay encouraged and sponsored greed and unscrupulousness, nay immoral and unethical behaviour. They have actually propagated their and our downfall and then had the gall to politic and worm their way out of it.
Do we really look to America, or Sorros, or Brown or Blair or Obamah to save the world? If so then God help us all!
Thanks FTB, for so eloquently pulling apart Piers3 absurd suggestion that the schools should sell their property and lease it back.
Obviously, its easy for large schools like CH and Eaton with huge endowments to provide numerous bursaries. Not so easy for smaller, more recently founded, institutions which I suspect are the majority.
My son's school for example has around 150 pupils paying between £5k and £15k per annum (there are a few boarders so hence the high-end fees). So let's say the income from fees is about £1,500,000 per year. Out of that the school has to pay the salary of the headmaster, about 15 teachers and a dozen or so ancillary staff. They also have to pay for utilities, general maintenance, food for the ********* and all the other bits and pieces required to maintain an organisation of this size. On top of that there also has to be money to invest in refurbishment of existing facilities or addition of new ones.
It's difficult to see where the money for full bursaries would come from, yet this seems to be what the charity commission wants. As one headmaster put it, it seems as though the government wants to bring back the assisted places scheme (which they abolished) but get the private schools to fund it.
I wonder if private hospitals get any tax breaks. If so, perhaps they will be told to offer cut price ops to a few deserving cases!
Resmum
Obviously, its easy for large schools like CH and Eaton with huge endowments to provide numerous bursaries. Not so easy for smaller, more recently founded, institutions which I suspect are the majority.
My son's school for example has around 150 pupils paying between £5k and £15k per annum (there are a few boarders so hence the high-end fees). So let's say the income from fees is about £1,500,000 per year. Out of that the school has to pay the salary of the headmaster, about 15 teachers and a dozen or so ancillary staff. They also have to pay for utilities, general maintenance, food for the ********* and all the other bits and pieces required to maintain an organisation of this size. On top of that there also has to be money to invest in refurbishment of existing facilities or addition of new ones.
It's difficult to see where the money for full bursaries would come from, yet this seems to be what the charity commission wants. As one headmaster put it, it seems as though the government wants to bring back the assisted places scheme (which they abolished) but get the private schools to fund it.
I wonder if private hospitals get any tax breaks. If so, perhaps they will be told to offer cut price ops to a few deserving cases!
Resmum
-
FirstTimeBuyer
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:34 am
- Location: S East
Resmum
Your DS's school, being relatively small, is precisely the type of school that may be vulnerable if the Charity Commission decides to push this.
Only the richest of the schools will be able to accommodate any material percentage of non-payers. Some will make some discreet cutbacks, and others will switch from scholarships to bursaries.
Any school with more demand than supply may raise fees.
However the very schools that are vulnerable to the credit crunch (small preps, small boarding schools, schools in more remote locations) might find that this pushes them over the edge.
Hopefully Sassie's-Dad is right and it never happens (although 4 schools have already been formally warned in Scotland). Personally I think this is going to Court, and Piers3 is right to point out that the outcome is not a foregone conclusion, either way.
Your DS's school, being relatively small, is precisely the type of school that may be vulnerable if the Charity Commission decides to push this.
Only the richest of the schools will be able to accommodate any material percentage of non-payers. Some will make some discreet cutbacks, and others will switch from scholarships to bursaries.
Any school with more demand than supply may raise fees.
However the very schools that are vulnerable to the credit crunch (small preps, small boarding schools, schools in more remote locations) might find that this pushes them over the edge.
Hopefully Sassie's-Dad is right and it never happens (although 4 schools have already been formally warned in Scotland). Personally I think this is going to Court, and Piers3 is right to point out that the outcome is not a foregone conclusion, either way.
Exams are formidable for the best prepared. The greatest fool may ask what the wisest man cannot answer.
