as in via scholarships? Personally I don't think they should be allowed to get around the Charity Commission in this way. They're supposed to be 'of benefit to their community'- surely pulling in the clever DCs from the local state schools merely 'degrades' the state school but improves the exam results for the private school? Would we be happy with that as a solution??

Well some schools such as Manchester Grammar build their whole ethos around giving access to very bright lads from families who couldn't otherwise afford such an education.

Also many independent schools allow kids from the local state schools to use their facilities. Is this not a benefit to the community?

I don't think it's 'nicking' bright students from the state system at all. It just so happens that their brains have afforded them a choice they wouldn't otherwise have. In the same way that the money of many of the other students has done the same.

Thousands of bright kids will still go to state school either because they haven't been given a scholarship or because they and their parents feel it's the right decision for them. The state system is not being starved of bright sparks just because the odd one accepts a scholarship at an independent school.

As for charitable status; Well surely they can hold this so long as their revenue is ploughed back into the school?

Cushion, it was my impression that to have charitable status there must be some 'public benefit' demonstrated. This is from the Guardian, a year ago:

"The Charity Commission today confirmed that it plans to publish general guidance in October on how charities will be expected to meet the "public benefit" clause of the new Charities Act, which is due to become law next year.

Under the act for the first time, charitable organisations that charge fees - including fee-paying schools - will have to prove that they still bring a "public benefit" if the cost of their fees are beyond the means of people on low incomes."

The fact is though 'many' independent schools MIGHT allow local DCs to use their facilities, the very fact the Charity Commission has recently become involved is because many absolutely do not OR believe 9-10pm every other Thursday evening's use of the tennis courts meets those criteria.

And surely those bright DCs 'brains affording them a choice they wouldn't otherwise have had' means the same thing as depriving the local state school of those brains and presumably, talent?

Yes, thousands of DCs WILL continue to go to state schools- just fewer than before; to, once again, the gain and benefit of the private schools. Yes, 'the system' IS 'being starved of bright sparks'.

The thing is, where private schooling is concerned, the numbers are small- what, 7% of DCs? BUT it appears the influence of that percentage extends WAY beyond 7%- and I feel the already manifest advantage those DCs get does not need to be further enhanced by ever more brilliant exam results/top flight university places facilitated by creaming off the brightest DCs from the local schools in the name of retaining 'charitable status'-ie to be allowed to 'withhold tax' from the government, thus from the rest of us in order to keep fees down. In other words, the rest of us are expected to effectively subsidise YOUR (figuratively speaking!) DCs advantage in life.

What about the compulsory opening of sporting facilities? The lending of supposedly superior teachers to the state sector (maybe to teach the top set there!) rather than the totally self-benefiting of raking off DCs who will serve to enhance your private school yet further?

Is educating 700,000 children without taking any money from the taxman not a public benefit. Who is benefitting, if it is not the taxpayer.

It would certainly cost a lot more than the 17.5% VAT to educate children in the maintained sector.

And no one is forcing anyone to apply for a scholarship place.

Once again, if there is nothing wrong with state schools, why the whinge about private?

No it's not a public benefit.

I'm with you, scienceteacher. Those of us who choose the independent sector pay the same tax as those who use the state sector. We are voluntarily paying twice for our children's education.

If independent schools closed and that 7% suddenly appeared in the state sector, how much more tax would we all have to pay to cover the cost of educating them?

Quite agree with Science Teacher. We are PAYING twice if we choose to use the private system.

If there is nothing wrong with the state system why is there any demand for private education. The government has tinkered with education over the years, getting rid of grammer schools (even though half of Labour MPS went to them).

My son's school opens their doors to the local community because the state schools have slowly sold off their playing fields.

The Charity Commission has said under the new laws there has be proof of benefit to the poor, not benefit to anyone. Under the old law since the 1600s or something in the UK charity included relief of poverty but also education, education of anyone was enough and that's all now gone because Labour has a thing about posh people and it's doing the same to schools as it did to hunting etc. So yes you need to show you benefit the real poor but it can be the very high IQ poor. It doesn't have to be the under 100 IQ poor.

Most private school parents like me would quite like very bright poor children in the schools. I know children at my children's old schools North London Collegiate, Habs who are from poor hoomes but super bright. It's great to have that mixture just as Manchester Grammar tries to be and is aiming ultimately to let any boy in who is clever enough regardless of parental income.

If the labour reforms mean privileged posh schools cream off the brightest local state school children and there is a bigger gap than ever between state and private schools that is such fun and I think it's brilliant. That will teach labour to meddle with our school which are some of the best in the world (in the private sector).

Our school allows the local state schools to use both sporting facilities and science facilities at various times in the year. One state school also used the fabulous stage and its equipment to put on a benefit concert for a local charity.

It also ensures our local beacon primary school is not twice as over-subscribed as it already is.

I know I'm paying twice and I absolutely believe that it is right that I do so. I think you'd find that very few parents who chose the independent route do so with an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude.

This is a lecture given by Prof Luxton who has been a charity law specialist for 30 years. He thinks the new charities Act attack on independent schools will be against the law I agree with him.

I think one of the worst things the Labour government has done was abolishing the Assisted Places Scheme. Now private schools are offering bursaries in its place however the only way they can raise the money for this is by charging the parents paying the full fees more. therefore fees keep rising, meaning that private education becomes unaffordable for more people.

My husband and I fall into the category of many others I expect where he earns too much for us to qualify for bursaries for our children's education but we do not earn enough to pay the full fees. So private education is not a realistic option for now.

To answer the original post I think the government should stop interfering with schools charitable status as, as others have said if private schools didn't exist the government would have to find even more money for the state sector.

The government should be trying to improve state schools so that they are as good as private schools..reducing class sizes, paying teachers more to attract good teachers etc. Whereas all the government seem to be doing is interfering with private schools, criticising faith schools, introducing lotteries for places etc.

No, the answer is (a) for more people to realise that there are some very good state options (b) for all state provision to have the investment (financial and otherwise) to be brought up to an excellent standard.

Both our local state schools have sports facilities which are pretty much equal to our local independent school (with the exception of the swimming pool - indie school has one which desperately needs modernising; state schools don't have one).

Both state schools are surrounded by 6' high metal sharp-end fences or barbed-wired topped fences which are locked to keep the community out unless they are prepared to pay to hire the facilities. But the private school is expected to open its grounds to the community to be used as required for sport at no charge.

Just behind the private school, between the state schools, is a huge park with rugby, football and cricket pitches, bowling green, bandstand, skateboard park, tennis courts, basketball court, play parks for younger and older children, a cafe and open space. But the private school is still expected to give up its facilities for nothing!!

Indie school doesn't have 'bad' fences, either. Just standard round-topped cast iron ones bordering the park and a car-park style barrier at the entrance. Most of the rest is standard 6' wooden fencing panels you'd put around your garden.

I don't understand why people think that if independent schools were abolished, state schools would miraculously be better. The state would have more children to educate on the same budget. How would that possibly make things different. It's irrational. Removing charitiable status will basically mean that VAT will be charged to parents on the fee note. I would actually rather they charge VAT and get on with doing an excellent job of educating my sons than jump through hoops to satisfy a ridiculous test that benefits noone. So, in the end, independent schools will become even more expensive and even more exclusive. This will just widen the gap by making an independent education ever more unattainable for even more people. Why don't they offer each pupil a voucher to the value of whatever it costs the state to educate him/her on average each year. Instead of closing the gap they are just polarising the argument. Grrrrrr

I can't say that either dh or myself withheld tax from the govt when we were paying school fees Miljee. We paid tax and school fees.

On the basis that a parent will always try to do their best for their kids, why shouldn't those who can't afford the fees take advantage of the bursaries on offer? I thought levelling the playing field meant that we tried to open more opportunities for people by raising standards, not by breaking a system that works very well.

The only reason that the charity commission has become involved is because the government asked it to. The politics of envy and class are still evidently alive and kicking in the Labour party, as is evidenced by the unequal distribution of educational resources across the UK. This is why some of us choose to pay, along with small matters of ethos, smaller class sizes, behaviour and a broader curriculum than is delivered in the state sector.

I also fail to see why it bothers you what we choose to spend our money on. You spend yours on what you want, and I'll spend mine on ds's education.

I entirely agree with Mother Inferior with the caveat that excellent state provision is patchy, and like much else in life, you get what you pay for, therefore some choose to pay for private education as the alternative is not good enough.

That youtube link - he may be right. The Charities Act 2006 says advancement of education is one category PLUS there must be benefit to the public. It does not seem to say it must benefit the poor so surely that could be challenge the guidance which says the poor must be helped. I don't think there's anything in the new law which says the poor have to benefit but I may be wrong.

If they charge VAT you just exclude more not very well off parents which is a shame

Assisted places didn't work - they were used by posh reasonably rich parents who could delude a school that their self employed income was £5k a year to get a place. The poor from council estate rarely got a look in.

Xenia - there was nothing to stop "the poor from council estates" putting their children in for assisted places exams. I expect many would have not wanted their children going to "posh" schools or would maybe not have known of the scheme, as I doubt many state primary heads would have encouraged them to enter their children for the exams.

I went to a state primary in a rural area and then gained an assisted place to a private all girls school. My parents never lied about their income to get me there. By the time my younger sister was 11 my parents earned too much to qualify for an assisted place so she went to a comprehensive and wasn't particularly happy. The other assisted place girls at my school came from a range of backgrounds..and i would not imagine their fathers fiddled their income either.

I can't see how the current bursaries offered by private schools are going to appeal to a wider social cross section than assisted places so are you saying the current bursaries don't work either in terms of attracting those with lowest incomes.

I think the labour government just got rid of Assisted places purely because they are anti private schools and realised they would save money - apparently the money saved has been put into nursery education. A pity it wasn't used on making primary school class sizes smaller instead.

Many didn't thought, that was the trouble so it was only helping middle class children.

What we need is every parent in the country given a £5k voucher a year to spend where they choose and top up if they wish.

Well said Xenia, that would be fab. Didn't the Conservatives propose this once though?

(But I don't agree with you about Assisted Places - I had one at secondary, and my parents were certainly not "posh reasonably rich" - our household income was about £15000.)

The problem with vouchers is that lots of middle-class parents would try to "choose" the same limited options, thus creating the same jostling effect we have now.

But it would give people like me more of an option. I've got 2 dd's and there's no way I could afford two lots of £8000 on our household income of £30000. However, two lots of £3000 might just be within reach.

£5K a term would be more helpful in my case

I am a Governor of a small independent prep school and the repercussions of the new Charity Commission teats will potentially have one of the following effects: because there is a requirement to provide bursaries etc, in a school with not much "extra" money in the bank the only way to fund these is by increasing fees. As someone else said this makes the school even more elitist. Alternatively it is not possible to show any more benefit to the general public than before (no flashy facilities, no bursaries etc) and so the school loses charitable status and closes - 200 childen then have to fit in to the already overcrowded state system.

These proposals are a real worry and in my view try to fix a "problem" that was never there in the first place. All sorts of people use the independent sector - rich and not so rich, who make huge sacrifices for their children. The common factor is CHOICE and if a child is bright enough to go to the best school around and that happens to be an independent school (it isn't always!)then who is anyone to say that should not happen. Charitable status is an historical anomoly, however I'd like to bet that the taxes paid by the parents of children in the independent sector make a huge dent in the so called "unpaid" tax which arises out of charitable status.

Yes it would be fantastic if the state sector provided the same sort of opportunities as the best of the independent sector. However that would take money, and no political party would suggest raising income tax levels to the rate required for such a radical overhaul. It would be political suicide, so we are stuck with the system we have.

Parents whose children go to state schools pay taxes too, you know. I hate this superior 'we are doing you state school scum a favour you know' attitude.

I'm sure that on average, per capita taxes are much higher among private school families, Edam. And if you use maintained schools, you are getting something for your taxes, which you aren't if you go private.

The whole Nu Labour hump against private schools/charitible status thang is a potential case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

It would be much more expensive to the public purse to have more children in the maintained sector, and that money would have to be raised via taxation across the board.

Anyone who bleats about charitible status and VAT is really on shaky ground. They are clearly showing that they have a major chip on their shoulders regarding private education. Any sensible person would say thanks very much for contributing to our schools but not draining their resources.

Willali -- in that case, can you explain why private schools that are not charities (quite a few are limited companies or family-owned) charge fees that are entirely comparable with the schools that do have charitable status?

They charge what they think the market will bear, that's all there is to it. Your argument would make sense if admission to the schools were needs-blind, but that is almost never the case, except in anomalies such as Christ's Hospital.

I don't object to people sending their children private if they can afford it and that's what they think is best, but to pretend that this option is available to anyone with a bright child, and that fee-paying parents are somehow performing a public service by freeing up state school places for others is just risible.

I would guess about 95% of private schools are charities. I cannot think of a single god one that isn't to be honest form Manchester Grammar to those my children were at- Habs, north London collegiate, merchant taylors. There are two group I know of GEMS and Cognita I think who are companies and they are not many and not very high up league tables and most parents don't really seek a school like that if they're going to pay.

If I set up a private school yes I would charage what the market could bear but 70% of fee income goes directly onh teacher wages fo you've only got 30% left for bildings, rent etc (bad typing as on train,,sorry...)

94% of parents use the state sector and given the average wage is £25k most could not afford to go private. I agree on that. I do not agree that we who go private are not doing the state a serivce - we clearly are - we are saving it £5k a year per child over 13 years in my case £5 x 13 x 5. I should be getting tax rebates and a huge great pat on the back fro Gordon Brown who I see has nobly chosen a local school for his son where there are a huge number of children with free school meals and 85% speak two languages.

Saving the state money is not the objective of private education but it is certainly a consequence.

DD's school is entirely dependent on fee income and has no huge historical fund to provide bursaries like some other schools. Any which are given come out of fee income i.e. are funded by current parents, apart from a couple for sixth form I think which are from the alumni society.

There is talk of launching a fundraising drive to establish a fund which will provide bursaries for the future. I hope it works. It's not really a school which has lots of really rich families, iyswim. A quick glance at the car park shows that.

actually the poorer you are, the higher proportion of your income you pay in tax (across all taxes, not just income tax). Better off people pay progressively less the wealthier they get. Because we have quite a regressive tax system in this country, with top rate of income tax at 40 per cent whether you earn 40K, 400K or 4M. And VAT and other taxes at flat rates.

What's more, the poorest in society give proportionately more to charity as well.

So all this 'ooh, we are doing you a favour by taking our kids out of the state system AND we are doing society a favour by paying tax' (as if no-one else has to) is a mirror image of the true situation. And bloody insulting.

All this 'oh, we make sacrifices, as if no-one else does!

Xenia: why do you think it is the case that 'most parents don't really seek a school like that [GEMS/COGNITA managed] if they're going to pay.' ?

amen, edam

We're in NZ - I will pay GST on education for ds - if I make a donation to the state school (most school charge them) I get 33% back from the tax man.

Private school's do get some money from the ministry of ed here, but the 12.5% GST on fees more than covers that.

You can bury your head in the sand all you like, Edam, but there is no denying that private school parents pay tax for state schools and don't use them.

I'm not saying it's wrong to do this - but it's a fact. It really is irrelevent what poorer families pay or don't pay, tbh.

Because the private company ones seem to have second rate results or aren't in the top 50 say for A level results. They are just entering the market so it may be unfair criticism. I think they are aiming for cheap and cheerful too as their market sector which perhaps parents may not want. You can get very cheap and cheerful in a state grammar just as well if you live in the right area. I think they're owned by Arabs too some of them not that that's necessarily a problem but they are not quite the ethos of say GPDST schools or those of city livery companies or the very old foundation schools.

Interesting that you consider £7k-£9k per year (depending on the school) to be 'cheap and cheerful'

it is relevant waht poor people pay if they pay proportianally more in taxes than rich people.

rich people will always buy education.

its not fair - but then we live in an individualistic society, i think there is irony abound when people mortgage themselves to the hilt to buy a house in a catchemtn area becuase they cant afford private education ....and then start spouting crap about "community"

there is no "community"

BTW, Edam, according to HMRC's own figures, the rich have a much higher tax burden than the poor. A 100k earner has a 30.7% tax rate, whereas a 20k earner has a 15.0% rate. Poorer people spend far more of their income on zero vat items, such as food and children's clothes, or low vat items, such as heating. They also pay a lot less in direct income taxes, and possibly lower council taxes too. In addition, they get tax rebates that rich taxpayers can only dream of.

But all this is irrelevent really to this thread

Why is it unfair?

Is it an accident that those who send their children to private schools worked hard at school and then at university (doing courses that offered a ROI), and then worked extremely hard for maybe 20 years in industry?

Is it really fair to think that parents who dossed around at school, left early, barely held down unskilled jobs ever since, and perhaps are barely out of nappies themselves, should have exactly the same opportunities.

Dream on!

I'm not burying my head any-bloody-where, I'm merely rebutting some of the more disingenuous statements made by parents trying to justify private education.

And the line that 'waah, poor us, we pay tax for something we choose not to use' is a really pathetic line of argument. If that's the standard of debate private education buys you...

No citizen or taxpayer uses everything the government funds. There are plenty of people who don't have children at all paying taxes - should they start moaning about shelling out for midwives, health visitors and maternity wards? I'm vegetarian, but some of my taxes are spent by DEFRA supporting the meat industry. I don't go around telling meat-eaters I'm doing them some sort of special favour by paying tax!

FWIW I went to both state and independent schools. Don't object to people sending their children private as such, just object to false logic.

Oh p-lease, now poor people do better out of tax rebates! Are you for real, ST? You are arguing black is white and I'm sure you damn well know it!

The lowest-paid 10 per cent have a tax burden of 44 per cent, according to the most recent HMRC figures. link

As to fairness... money begets money, as a rule. Privilege tends to run in the family - funny that. It might come as a surprise to some of the posters on this thread, but people who attend private schools are not genetically superior.

Oh, now we are getting down to it, your argument really is that parents who pay for private education are just morally superior to everyone else.

Because no-one who uses the state school system works hard, of course.

I don't think anyone is saying 'poor us' - just stating facts. We do not take up one of the services paid for by our taxes. What is so controversial about this statement (taxpayers with no children in the system are in exactly the same situation, but it doesn't cause them to rise up in arms).

I think that if you look at many mumsnet threads, there is a prevailing culture of 'what can I get for nothing from the state', so it is not an unreasonable question for the OP to ask - on the offchance.

Shrug/ I don't get any tax rebates despite having 5 children - yes I'm for real.

neither do I, so bloody what?

What's your point then?

Sorry, I hate to get personal, but you started it.

Scienceteacher, I really hate this assertion - which I have read on mumsnet more than once now - that those of us who send our children to state schools are somehow trying to fleece the state. Wtf?

You are adding two and two and coming up with one million SSB.

This thread isn't about state school parents, tbh.

I've never quite understood the purpose of pointing out that those who use private schools also pay for state provision. It's unquestionably true, so it can't be debated. File under The Bleeding Obvious. But so what? (People who use private healthcare also pay for the NHS. And??) Is the suggestion that they should not do so?...

Sigh... my point is that you somehow appear to think you are hard done by because you don't get tax rebates and apparently all poor people do and are off living the life of riley. That is just not true.

The idea that people who choose to send their children to private schools are somehow worse off than everyone else, somehow harder working, more deserving, more caring than everyone else, is a. offensive and b. rubbish. And I suspect you know it.

Wow, UQD!

Well, I don't lose sleep over being hard done by by this awful government.

I could feel hard done by by their inability to provide acceptable schools.

I do feel that their arbitrary cut of for tax rebates is extremely crude in that it does not take account of family size. There's no reason why they couldn't have built in a sliding scale.

Other than those passing opinions, I pretty much count my blessings.

I don't think I have particularly complained on this thread.

However, having been on many of these types of threads, I have observed that many of the squealers have not really studied and then worked hard enough or for a particularly long time. I would not have been able to afford private schools if I had left school with unimpressive qualifications, or if I had started a family soon after graduation...

It's hardly rocket science.

I agree with edam.[GRIN]
ST-What is your point?

science teacher - so you just worked harder than me and thats why your children get a private education?

Well the converse would not have been true!

Am I the only person who reads these threads and thinks 'Thank Christ I wasn't tempted to send my kids to private school?'

LOL At the squealers. What do you mean , ST?
Those without a solid education don't deserve to get their children ionto good schools?
I am sure I don't need to tell you that there are myriad reasons people don't do well at school.
Doesn't mean they deserve any less than you. They may have other traits which are commendable that you may not possess.

And what exactly do you know about the educational qualifications and career status of posters who have questioned your assertions that parents who use private education are 'better' than the rest of us, ST?

i seriously cant believe that you think you are deserving of a better life for your children than mine...becuase i didn't work as hard as you

i can't believe anyone really thinks that seriously wow.

what's even more worrying is that she's apparently a teacher so no doubt passing these prejudices on to a whole new generation...

work harder

that term is so loaded.

her description of working harder is studying for success and planned parenthood.

Gosh, and there was I thinking that private schools weren't better....

Make up your minds, ladies.

i never said private schools weren't better - or even infered it - maybe your edumication isn't as good as you thought

i'm stuck on the 'i am better than you' thing

Let's phrase it another way...

If you doss around at school, and then work for a few years in an unskilled job, are you entitled to private education for your children?

Where does your quote come from, btw?

Or are you just throwing mud for the sake of it?

"....." is a quote

so for unclarity - those were my own words as summation- no mud slignign here

of course not - i dont think that if you piss about your whole life you are entitled to it - that is not the point at all

i think that there are a vast number of scenarios inbetween

study hard for success and plan parenthood

and

cant be arsed at school - waster

however the way you are phrasing things seems to suggest that you afford some kind of superiority for the former and those who don't achieve it are the latter.

It is mudslinging when you try to tell someone what they have said or what they believe, when you have absolutely no evidence of this.

It is quite wrong to take someone's words around quite a narrow topic and extrapolate, and then present this extrapolation as some kind of truth.

For another point of view. I send my kids to private school though I teach in the state sector like quite a few other MNetters. I do not see why private schools should get charitable status any more than private hospitals or private nurseries without being able to prove that they are actually benefiting the community actually. Sharing facilities, teaching experience, allowing access to certain classes for state school pupils which aren't offered at school etc etc all seem reasonable ideas to me.

And I don't think that I or my kids are better or harder working or more deserving because they go to private school. Just very lucky actually.

I'd like to ask how abolishing independent schools might make state schools better?

I think ST probably means the less well off pay less income tax, which is true for the vast majority of the population. Although a private equity executive pays no tax on the first £9,200 (CGT-free personal allowance for 08/09 tax year) then 18% flat rate on all gains thereafter.

what's this rubbish about anyone being entitled to private education? Anyone with enough money can pay school fees. Doesn't make the parent particularly clever, or special, or worthy, just means you have money. Big wow.

And I find the argument that if you do well at school you can afford private education bizarre. Most teachers, for instance, don't earn enough to pay school fees. Or engineers, or people in dozens of careers that require a university degree.

Less well off pay a greater proportion of their income in tax. Wealthy might pay more in total because they have more to start with. But as a proportion of their income, they get off lightly.

I strongly object to the following comments made by science teacher:

"Is it an accident that those who send their children to private schools worked hard at school and then at university (doing courses that offered a ROI), and then worked extremely hard for maybe 20 years in industry?

Is it really fair to think that parents who dossed around at school, left early, barely held down unskilled jobs ever since, and perhaps are barely out of nappies themselves, should have exactly the same opportunities."

Science teacher - You are making sweeping generalisations above that are not factually correct.

Firstly many families who use private schools have inherited money or fees are paid by grand parents so the parents sending the children to private schools have not necessarily worked hard themselves. Obviously there are also many parents of children at private schools who do work very hard and have made large sacrifices too.

Then there are also those who have worked hard at school, got degrees, held down a career for 20 yrs and pay higher rate tax, such as my husband, but still cannot afford private education for their children. In the south east I imagine that one needs a household income of well over 60 k to send two children to private school and pay the mortgage. So please don't class all those who do not send their children to private schools, as lazy goodfornothings who haven't worked hard enough.

The reason I am against the governments proposals re: charitable status is that their measures will push private school fees even higher, and even further out of reach for normal hard working people.

I also expect that more small prep schools will end up closing or merging, or having to join the Cognita group (where I believe the schools have to make a profit for the share holders). So there will also be less choice in the private sector.

In the light of evidence that the more middle-class children that go to a school the better that school does, I find it almost moronic that people are having to ask 'why would abolishing private schools improve state schools?'

No one is going to abolish private schools so it's a bit pointless to argue about it. Some places around the world have worked with a system including some US states where parents are given a voucher to spend where they choose including at private schools and I think that would work well because £5,000 is about half or two thirds of many day private school fees and a lot of parents could just about afford to top up to a full place who could not afford private schools now. Even better would be to have all schools in the private sector entirely however as things are always better run outside of state control. That would be my ideal.

As for who is better I as just having this debate with my elder daughter who was ridiculously suggesting she was the "best child" as if mothers ever do decide one is better than the other. They are all uniquely good. In general private school parents pay for places out of their own income (a few women live off male earnings which is iniquitous and politically wrong but that's for another thread) but plenty of the mothers pay the fees from their own earnings. Very very few play from inheritance. I suppose a few have grandparents paying but very very few in my experience and a few are paid by he army and some have scholarships or like we had for about 10 years a virtually free place for one because his father taught at the school but in general parents pay and they work very hard to earn that money and prioritise their children's education over holidays and cars in the main. Many are children of teachers or shop workers and the like in my experience who work very hard sometimes with two jobs to pay day school fees of £10000 a year.

Are peop;le "better" if they can afford fees? I think all people are of equal worth but very different. Some are obese. Some unpleasant. Some very very low IQ'd. Some horrible ot be with. A huge mixed bag. Some are terribly lazy. Others will work very hard. I've always worked very hard and I think part of the reason I can afford school fees is because of that, because I was born with a reasonably high IQ, because I chose a career which would enable me to pay school fees and because I don't have political objections to it. It doesn't make me a "better" person inside morally although on a good few scales I probably am better than a lot of people if you took a list of say IQ, looks, niceness, stability, health, career success etc I do think I've been both lucky and hard working and probably come reasonably highly up most scales.

Hmm, okaaaay.

I'm assuming from your comment that you do realise that at least some state schools would be improved by the abolishing of private schools.

I don't always agree with Xenia, but her last post was spot on.

A question for those who think private education is unfair: if you know a family to have a six-figure income, what should they be spending their money on. Say they have £40k more disposable income than you, where morally should that money go?

I don't understand the criteria for charity status. Why are donkey sactuaries charities.

In response to science teachers post at 6 somethng am today

I am sorry if what i wrote was construde as mudslinging and i hop that the following post clarified it - if not then i hope this apology will do in it's stead.

My post wasn't directly answered as a consequence of this, perhaps you would be so kind?

i think re: the 40k question. that as we stand at the moment that would be hard to argue, however i think the wider argument is why are your children entitled to better education becuase you have more money?

I think that someone who has £40k more disposable income than the average should be paying most of it in tax. But I guess that's not the answer you're looking for?

Because life is not fair. Why are some children lucky enough to be born looking pretty or with a high IQ or with loving parents? Life is full of inequities. Some very rich parents don't pay or bother with good schools and never cuddle or love their children. I know someone where both his parents didn't want him and he was at boarding school from age 7 and I thnk they even argued in the holidays about who had to have him. That is also very unfair and damaging as much as if he had been born into poverty and neglected in a series of squats because his internal emotional self is damaged.

(If you have an extra £40k income then then £16,500 will be paid in tax and national insurance and you will have £23,600 spare - cost of 2 day school places.)

I was assuming the 40k was after tax, ie disposable income.

I think you've (deliberately?) missed my point there, ST

Are you saying you want to go back to the 1970s and the 95% marginal tax rate?

If any more were made in that direction, we would do the clicheed thing and leave the country, probably for the US. There gets to a point where the middle classes won't put up with labour ideology.

a) Pretty much, yes
b) Tata then

can you spell 'Brain Drain'?

Ah well, I don't think all the people with brains have vast levels of disposable income.

In response to 'why are your children entitled to better education becuase you have more money? ' - are you going to go down the route of 'why do you have a nicer car?' 'Why have you got a bigger house?' 'How come you can have lots of holidays?'

There are lots of things that I can afford that some others can't. What do you suggest??

Would the US want all the tax refusers. Just curious? They are quite fussy about who they take aren't they?

It's a cliche, but refers to those who have the ability to stimulate the economy and provide wealth for the nation.

If you lose those people, the country is worse off, or the gap is made up by immigrants. It doesn't help the working class at all - at best neutral, at worst, no one to pay their pensions and more short term needs.

Not if you are a US citizen

That's where I was going, sniffy. It seems there is no end of people telling us how to spend our honestly earned money, but woe betide turning the tides.

Well, of course not ScienceTeacher. But if you are British and a high earning, say, lawyer, why would the States want you? They've got plenty high earning lawyers of their own.

It's all a bit foot stomping isn't it?

It just sounds to me like lots of people on here would like to establish a communist state. I have chosen a private school despite the fact that we have some lovely village schools nearby. I am guessing that the place that we would have been entitled to will be gratefully recieved, perhaps by someone who is unable to live this area.

Don't know about lawyers, as that is a fairly geographically specific occupation, but loads of countries are offering immigrant visas to highly skilled migrants - US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. Then there's all of Europe, which is visa free.

It would be a very silly government that would nudge lucrative citizens in the direction of, say, Australia. It is only a tiny nudge that is needed.

Why would a private school want to give a scholarship (ie: spend the money)to a student that is not clever? The point of the system is to take intelligent but under-privileged students whose parents are not in a situation to give what their child may need in education and curriculum.

If you look at the occupations Australia wants it seems to be computer people, hairdressers, teachers and midwives. All those professions are skilled but not particularly highly paid, with the exception perhaps of computer experts. I'm just not convinced that people are crying out for exactly the same group of people who would be annoyed at the kind of taxation PW might favour.

If you look at the occupations Australia wants it seems to be computer people, hairdressers, teachers and midwives. All those professions are skilled but not particularly highly paid, with the exception perhaps of computer experts. I'm just not convinced that people are crying out for exactly the same group of people who would be annoyed at the kind of taxation PW might favour.

There does seem to be a common theory that the parents who choose independent schools do so to be socially elitist. This isn't true of us nor anyone we know at school. I'm not saying such views don't exist but the assumption that that's the main reason behind the choice simply isn't true. The vast majority of parents opt out of the state system to benefit from small class