Private schools are absolutely businesses. Many are for profit (even if this is not overtly obvious).
Whilst some are charitable trusts others aren’t. However, the issue many people will have is that most of the schools which are charitable trusts do almost nothing to justify their status. Others do an awful lot, for all the privilege of Eton, it is one of the schools that could actually justify their status on the charitable work they do.
I agree with the idea that they are "for profit" - but I stand by my assertion that they are not benefiting an ownership structure, which I believe was the implication of the other poster (think Nobby). If I have misinterpreted things then my apologies.
I would 100% agree that they are run in a business-like fashion - it would be against their constitution to not be run effectively and efficiently.
I understood the contention to be around distributions as opposed to the running style so I'll happily concede on this.
The point on charitable status is a tricky one as it is subjective as to how much they should be doing to justify it. They are, from appearances, doing the minimum required by the Charities Commission - whether that is sufficient is another question entirely and one I think many would agree should be set at a higher bar, but it is also the case then that by current definitions they are not operating fraudulently - ethically or morally though is open to debate.
My main thing here is that I believe the discussion needs to be moved away from the catch all approach it appears to take - fewer absolute terms (may be guilty of that myself at times too) and appreciating that independent schools are not some homogeneous entity where everyone is in a top hat and tails, speaks Latin, and rests their feet on the backs of their "fag"