DCH 139 Campaign for State Education
| 98 Erlanger Road
London
SE14 5TH
|
| |
| phone: 020 8942 2826
email: case@casenet.org.uk
website: www.casenet.org.uk
|
| Campaign for State Education
| |
| Please reply to:
Margaret Tulloch 158 Durham Road, London SW20 0DG mtulloch@poptel.org
|
June 21st 2004
DCH 139
Joint Committee on the Draft Charities
Bill
Submission from the Campaign for
State Education (CASE)
1. CASE welcomes the Government's aim
of clarifying the law relating to charities
2. CASE is not a charity. It is an
education campaign group supported by membership fees, subscription
to its magazine CASEnotes and donations. Its aim is ' to ensure
that the highest quality state education is experienced by all
as of right, regardless of race, home circumstances, ability or
disability'.
3. We wish to address ourselves particularly
to the question raised in the call for evidence 'Do fee paying
schools which are charities demonstrate adequate public benefit
arising from their activities?'
4. Under the proposed law charities
would have to demonstrate that they were established for public
benefit and that their purposes fell within one or more
of the 12 listed charitable purposes. Three purposes - advancement
of education, religion and social and community advancement (including
the care, support and protection of the aged, people with a disability,
children and young people) would seem to be those relevant.
5. We hope the committee will take
the following considerations into account (paragraphs 6 onwards
)
6. The ISC evidence says that ' the
education of 456,000 children in itself is a public good'. We
consider that this depends on how the children obtain places at
these schools.
7. It is clear that fee paying schools
cover a broad range. Some which cater for children with particular
disabilities and where fees are paid by local authorities undoubtedly
would have no difficulty proving that they are charities established
for public benefit. But many others would not pass this test.
8. If the only children able to benefit
from attending these schools are those with parents able to pay
the fees we question whether the social division arising from
that is a 'public good'.
9. Similarly we believe that fee paying
schools offering free places to children subject to passing a
selective entry test are working contrary to the public benefit,
and so cannot be deemed charitable. Selection divides families
and communities. It damages educational provision for the majority
by rendering impossible the aims of comprehensive education and
of social inclusion. More evidence can be provided on this if
the committee wishes.
10. We believe that most parents want
a good local school. If fee - paying schools make that situation
less likely to be achieved for all parents locally then they must
not be deemed charities working for the public good. We believe
that this is often the case.
11. There are cases where children
with particular social needs can be helped by being offered a
boarding place. Indeed there are state- funded boarding schools
which offer this facility.
12. Much of what is mentioned by fee
paying schools in support of retaining charitable status, apart
from free means tested places, is, we argue, peripheral to the
core work of the school. They do not indicate organisations 'established
for the public benefit'.
13. Such sharing activities as cited
for example in evidence from the ISC of schools 'offering' the
use of facilities to maintained schools are not the primary purpose
of fee paying schools so cannot be used to support the claim that
the school is established for public benefit. Indeed many maintained
schools may do this through lettings, it does not mean the school
is a charity. Indeed if the fee-paying school charges for that
facility surely it cannot be deemed charitable.
14. There are now many publicly funded
state private partnership activities arising from Government initiatives.
However useful this may be to the schools concerned in these
schemes, again this is not the primary purpose of those fee paying
schools who have joined the scheme, but incidental to their activities.
15. The ISC quotes figures of saving
to the public purse and assisting teachers to attain qualified
teacher status. If such calculations are to be considered surely
the cost to the public purse of the initial teacher training of
the teachers currently in the fee paying schools should not be
left out of this calculation.
16. We hope the committee will carefully
assess the financial benefit which charitable status brings to
schools to ensure that all schools in the maintained sector receive
financial similar benefits. Many maintained schools are setting
up charitable trusts to raise funds for their schools.
17. In conclusion we believe that the
committee will need to recommend that fee paying schools and their
charitable status will need to be considered case by case. The
extent to which the charitable purposes of the original foundation
are being met will need to be considered. It is clear that the
basis upon which places are offered must be a major consideration
for the committee.
18. It may be that some activities
of some of the schools, but not the major part, could be
considered as meeting the test of public benefit, and so deserve
the benefits of charitable status.
|
