to hate it when people talk about "indie" schools

[gobehindabushfgs]

in an attempt to make it sound cool, edgy and alternative? it isn't. it's private education. it's a right-wing, ultimately selfish decision.

"indie"

Of course most private schools shouldn't be classed as charities. The catch is, as the law stands there is no way for them to simply drop that status and become not-for-profit companies, which would be appropriate for most.

What should the definition of a charity be though?
I'm not suggesting they're more deserving that, say, the NSPCC. But what makes a charity a charity?

ost are very specific and not necessarily to the benefit of the wider community. Many are high profile and well supported financially. Should they also lose their status?
Not being confrontational, just curious.

As someone who cannot afford to privately educate my DD, I find these threads terrifying

wildstrawberry

I KNEW IT!

Most charities help disadvantaged people, I thought.

I ask because when we lived in the NW and we use to pop along to Alderley Edge you'd find charity shops raising money for things like disabled Peruvian Llamas and such. These were registered charitied and whilst I've no doubt the thousands of pounds raided made the DPL very happy, it really is a niche charity of no benefit whatsoever to the community.

Just wondered therfore how we define a charity. Does it have to benefit a certain portion of our community? More interestingly, should it?

Wildstrawberry, my DH is a lawyer working in tax and I'm fairly sure if that was legally possible we'd be in there. I will ask him tonight!

Why Gmajor7? Are you particularly worried about the school your children go to?

I'd say that charitable status should only attach to whatever proportion of an organisations activities aren't simply for its members benefit.

Thus, our local Buddhists have it right - they claim charitable relief on services they perform for other people, not on their buildings, stipends etc.

Whereas the churches all get it wrong, claim for everything but mostly of its paying for their club and clubhouse. But that's a whole different thread!

Yes, I was going to ask about churches, as in terms of being a charity they are exactly the same as independent schools or any schools for that matter.

If you feel that state schools should keep it, should there be means testing? I mean my last local primary held an auction of promises which included signed United/City shirts. Visit to OT, meeting with a very prominent City player, visit to meet cast of Coronation street. They raised around 10k and bought put it towards a pavilion!

Quite different from the schools who rely on selling home made cakes and make £300 at their sales.

OT being Old Trafford in case you wondered why anyone would buy a session with an Occ Therapist!

GMajor7, as someone who knows she can't afford private secondary education, I am very, very scared. I think it's going to have to be a mixture of home ed/tutors. [horrified emoticon]

Quite, Hilde! I have 3! We were living in the NW and if we had stayed, a move to Trafford was seriously on the cards simply to access the grammar system.

Oh it's legal alright. But you have to "qualify" ie you must have all the money up front

"Our tax planning school fees section offers a vast array of tax solutions, both ready-made and bespoke for our higher-earning clients. Contact us for more information.

For those that qualify, our School Fees Pension Plan is often the best option. By extending the time you pay your school fees, you may, frequently without any extra monthly cost, build up a substantially greater pension fund and pay off your fees. The additional tax relief gained can often be more than the original school fees! "

Oh I see. Not up front necessary, but oodles of cash moving around from tax dodge to tax dodge.

Ok sorry if it looked as though I was chickening out of replying.

I'm conscious this may seem a glib or cheap comparison, but in the 1980s, no-one who refused to buy Cape apples actually thought that Apartheid would end whether they did or not - they didn't buy Cape because they knew it was wrong, and didn't want to give tacit support to the regime. So, for me, there's an element of that attitude - even though the two things aren't directly comparable - in refusing to have anything to do with private education.

And what I think is that we have a country with a vast cohort of young people for who, inevitably and always, inequality will always be a reality. No-one is saying that if there weren't private schools, there would be no social class, no advantages or disadvantages, or that total equality would be achieved.

Now I could, can, and sometimes do be just anecdotal in the things I despise about a lot of private schools with which I come into contact, and doubtless many would find that every bit as offensive as I find the suggestion that my daughter at her state comp won't learn manners and morals, or doesn't get to do any 'extras', or that there aren't any/enough motivated parents at the school to make achievement a priority. But that wouldn't win anyone over - I'd probably just be accused of pretending to have a faith, or living in a massive house in a leafy area, and I wouldn't be so high-minded if I lived in the Bronx etc etc. In fact none of those things are true, but I have learnt there's little point arguing that as it just gets ignored.

But by segregating children according - essentially - to their wealth (and yes you can throw in cases of sacrifice and scholarship and so on, but it doesn't alter the fact that, basically, that's what the system does whilst there are private schools - then a situation is perpetuated which is little different from what Disraeli described in the 1840s:

"Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are ignorant of each other?s habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they are dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws."

JoanOfArgos - and your solution is?

Ban 'em, obv.!

And until that happens, don't prop up the iniquity by sending your kids there!

I don't understand people who say state is just as good but then claim there is inequality between the two systems.

does your ban extend to private SN schools, Joan?

Actually, not sure anyone has an over-arching solution, do they? Private school parents' solution to things they don't like in state schools is to stop their kids going there, hardly a solution either, is it?

My POINT, despite not being a solution, is that when you do that, you are part of the problem you perceive there to be.

And instead of banning private, why don't the govt make state just as good? Then nobody would have to spend money on schools.

I don't like the state SN school.
if dd1 went had gone there, she would still be non-verbal, stimming, rocking in a corner and singing to herself.

there is not enugh time for em to change the system to help dd1.

she goes to a private SN school.

should private SN schools also be banned (bearing in mind that they, on the whole, proivde the same differences as private MS schools - smaller classes, more teachers, more individualised curriculum, and more extra curricular activities)

Well how could they make it objectively 'just as good', when for some people it will never be 'just as good' as long as it doesn't take place in a lovely building, or have mainly middle class parents, or offer 'wrap around care'? Some people will always want to go private no matter what else is on offer, I think.

The two faced middle class state school parents segreggate their children by religion or house price. It is more deceptive and a less mixed education than at private schools. It is morally worse.

If you don't want segregation then the only acceptable moral positoin is pick the worst performing school in London say and send your children there. If you do that then you could perhaps try to maintain a moral position against private schools although it would be wrong. The moral good is to do best for your child.

On this "They set up a special "pension fund" or some such, you put in your lump sum - let's say you put in the entire cost of your kids education, £650 000 or whatever - and the "pension" or whatever it is pays your school fees each month, and you get your money back at the end, minus whatever the company charges for this service." Well pensions cannot pay out until the person is 55 so forget them. I suppose you could put a lump sum in trust for the benefit of the children but you are losing access to that money. I can't quite see how you could set it aside like this and get the sum back etc at the end. I'd need to know more about the accurate details of it.

Education is charitable. End of story. The private schools do the state school parents a huge service by ensuring huge amounts of state resources remain available for 94% of parents which otherwise would have gone on the 6% of us who pay fees and thus the state school parents kiss our feet in gratitude of course.

If the results were the same I'd say they were 'just as good.'