to think the state should pay part of our private school fees?

[wolvesarejustoldendaydogs]

Don't jump down my throat! It's just a thought.

State schools are overcrowded and there aren't enough good ones. Private schools are expensive.

What if every child had a right to have their state school 'payment' (whatever it costs per child per year') paid to a private school? Obviously parents would have to top-up (probably a considerable amount).

That would create a bit of a market, with more choice, making private schools more affordable and state ones less overcrowded.

Or is it a stupid idea for a reason I will think of soon after pressing 'POST'?

They would have to close because of the laws which govern how charities must be wound up. There have been several posts on this thread pointing this out. Unless there is a non-charitable school group able to buy it out as a going concern (including full market value for all land, buildings, equipment and other assets owned by the charity), then it will cease to function as a school; the trustees are obliged by law to realise assets and donate proceeds to another charity with similar aim.

So, charitable status ends; former charitable schools go on the market; chaos ensues as alternative education has to be provided for former pupils. I wouldn't want to have a child at school whilst that's going on. The state sector will have a really hard time aborning all those extra pupils, and I expect the negative impact would last several years.

I'm sure a way round that could be founding the will was there! As I said, can you not see the irony of a charity only accessible to people richer than average?

Found if then will was there...

I'm not richer than average. My wages are average as are my husbands. I work more hours to top it up. Why should we be penalised for that?

you shouldn't be penalised. But you shouldn't be benefitting from charitable status either.

Why not seeker?

I think that if charitable status could just be relinquished, they'd be queuing round the block to do it. It would require a change in the law though, and would probably necessitate any charity being able to wind up without charitable assets being recycled to other charitable purposes. This would be wide open to abuse.

Because charity by definition is the giving of money or help to those in need. Forgive me, but people able to afford private school fees do not qualify!

So private schools should be unreachable by those on average wages too. This furthering the divide.

DH and I earn over average wage but we don't have a massive income really, we couldn't afford private school if it was £10-12k a year like some as with 2 DCs we don't that much home. We are not rich in any way just have relatively good jobs and no mortgage which makes life easier.

My friends DH has a good job but not more than just covering normal mortgage and bills and a few UK breaks (nothing more fancy than that) but she works for barely over minimum wage purely to pay their only DCs school fees. I don't see why people are suggesting penalising people like that really and Seeker it is penalising people as if the fees were more they would not be able to afford it!

I wouldn't have thought that someone earning under £20,000 a year is particularly wealthy. Most bursaries are designed for low income levels.

Oh yes and they should pay for our houses and food as well, because there are some people struggling. Oh and our clothing, cars, insurance. Never mind that they already pay for our medical care (which isn't payed for most countries) that we actually have a welfare system, (which isn't found in most countries) We should just have our entire lives payed for by other peoples taxes.

"My friends DH has a good job but not more than just covering normal mortgage and bills and a few UK breaks (nothing more fancy than that) but she works for barely over minimum wage purely to pay their only DCs school fees. I don't see why people are suggesting penalising people like that really and Seeker it is penalising people as if the fees were more they would not be able to afford it!"

Then they would have to send their children to state school like every else! Quelle dommage!

Oh yes, then back to the sink school we go. Does your child attend a sink school seeker?

Do people not get annoyed about the 'penalising' of those who could never afford any fees at all?

but I can't see your issue if people want to work to pay their school fees? Maybe I am missing something but I can't see who's business it is and you've already said you live in a grammar school area if I am not mistaken so maybe you would feel different if you lived near completely crap schools.

They are not snobs in anyway and of course they would have sent him to state school as I did until we could afford to committ to the fees for the lon haul (1 DC of mine is still in state school) but we are lucky to have a small independent charity school which are non-selective and very family orientated nearby that have fees starting at less than £6k per year. I am failing to see what is wrong with it so maybe I am just a bit thick!

Not really TheOriginalSteamingNit as there are many bursaries for those people on lower incomes. DS2s school offers up to 90% and matches it for siblings. It also offers massive sibling discounts!

Ell me what a sink school is, and I'll tell you of my child goes to one.

Oh, and then tell me why charitable status should enable you to send your child to a school you consider not-sink while others don't have that option?

Seeker, why don't you try google and research it?

If only seeker had ever outlined her childrens schooling situation on here...

A sink school is the pits- the definition is a school that no one would send their DC to if they could possibly help it.

You see, I think that "sink school" and "local comprehensive" are synonymous terms for some people on here!

OP, no. Parents should pay a luxury tax on private school fees. That woukd fund additional state school places.

Not for me seeker. Have already said I would use the local state school if it was reasonable, or just ok. Of course I would, it would save a fortune.

This article in the Guardian suggests that sink schools are schools that have been abandoned by middle class families. That the problem with sink schools is down to social segregation in their intake. That to solve the problem requires enforced social diversity.

So, the people who are going 'I wouldn't send my kid to a sink school' are in effect the ones causing the problem of sink schools. These parents then taking the option of private schooling in order to avoid a sink school is stymieing their improvement.

People on here really don't seem to get that a school's intake is very important.