It is absurd - as even the most enthusiastic champions of independent schools must agree - that the fee-paying Dundee High School should retain its charitable status while John Wheatley College, which serves some of the most deprived communities in the east of Glasgow, should not.
It is absurd - as even the most enthusiastic champions of independent schools must agree - that the fee-paying Dundee High School should retain its charitable status while John Wheatley College, which serves some of the most deprived communities in the east of Glasgow, should not.
The explanation is that Dundee High School, where the highest level of fees is £8304 a year, meets the public benefit test because the fees are not "unduly restrictive," around 13% of pupils receive bursaries and the school's facilities are made available to local groups.
By contrast, John Wheatley College in Easterhouse has been denied charitable status because, like all further education colleges in Scotland, it is not completely independent of ministerial involvement.
For the last two years there have been warnings that the regulations designed to tighten up the law on charities to prevent fraud would penalise the colleges. Under the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act, all charities must be independent of government. Colleges, as demonstrated by the charity regulator's ruling on John Wheatley, fall foul of the rules, while independent schools will retain charitable status if they pass the public benefit test. That not only the relatively modestly-priced High School of Dundee, but the most expensive schools, such as Fettes and Gordonstoun, are likely to continue as charities while colleges are denied such status, is a historical anomaly stemming from the time they were under local authority control.
Charitable status is valuable because it provides tax breaks, such as exemption from corporation tax and VAT relief on fuel and utility costs. There is no reason why independent schools should not have these advantages if they provide genuine benefits to the wider community. Giving other children access to their superior facilities should be in everyone's interest.
But for schools which sell education to the privileged to be given a financial advantage over colleges which provide classes to people who are belatedly catching up on basic qualifications and acquiring the skills which society needs from plumbers, electricians, mechanics, caterers and care assistants, is blatantly unfair, divisive and bad law.
Reasonable and desirable as it is to require charities to be completely separate from government interference, the law in this particular instance is an ass. That can easily be rectified. The colleges argue that the bodies which examine their educational standards and accounts provide sufficient control without the need for ministerial final say. The unions which oppose more autonomy for individual colleges want democratic accountability, but that should be possible through the boards of governors. The Herald has consistently welcomed the legislation to prevent bogus charities defrauding the public, but has equally consistently pointed out that its operation is in danger of unfairly penalising genuine organisations who cannot meet the demanding new procedures.
Large colleges are in a different league but as things stand are in danger of collectively losing £20m a year from the operation of an act which was never intended to block educational opportunities from people who need them most. A change in the legislation or an exemption for colleges must be expedited as quickly as possible.
