to think there is not much difference between private schooling and moving into catchment area of a good school?

[knowitallstrikesagain]

Lots of people I know consider themselves to be against private education. But the vast majority of them aspire to live in an area with a good high school. These area are more expensive to live in, so basically they are talking about using money to get their children a good education, they are just going about it in a different way.

AIBU to think you should not be 'morally opposed' to private education if you move into a desireable area just to be near good schools when you are well aware that other people cannot afford this location?

flatpackhamster, I just want them to pay the price. What's unfair about that? So many pro-private education enthusiasts bang on about how much they pay, all out of their pocket. They need a reminder of just how untrue that is. If the playing field were level, they'd have to pay far more.

I object to their subsidy because it goes hand in glove with selection. If they couldn't turn anyone away, I'd have a re-think, of course.

Your other objections to my ideas are just classic "whatabout"-ism, and a distraction I won't be distracted by.

echt It's not "whataboutism", it's finding out whether you're opposed to subsidy on a point of principle or merely hiding your loathing of private education behind a veneer of fiscal probity. It seems that it's the latter. You don't like the idea of some children doing better than others because their parents are richer.

If you'd been opposed to subsidy on a point of principle, and had objected to all forms of state subsidy I would have agreed with you.

echt - Private schools are there to educate children albeit children of well-off parents but you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about their charitable status. Why is that?

I reckon that in the course of our working lives DP and I have paid close to £600k in taxes. So it narks me greatly when others tell me that I am unethically benefitting from my school's charitable status and that I should pay even more for my DCs education. I would rather they thank me for subsidising their DCs to study Media Studies.

Then should we pay for state education also? We sponsor a child in a country where there is no free education (or it is sketchy to say the least). This kid will get to go to school and have a small sum at the end of it to buy land or set up a small business (assuming civil war doesn't flare up again and completly bugger up the country). Poor kid is an orphan and also has a disablity, so who knows what future he has. We don't know how lucky we are here to be able to have a choice of 'which' and not 'if' we educate (nor having to wonder if the children will survive to adulthood). Whenever I see threads like this I look at his photo and wonder if we know what hardship really is (for most of the time).

Private education exists, has done for a long time. It is all about choice. Some people have an easier choice than others. Some sacrifice for what they think is best for their children (well I suppose 99% of parents do). It is not always an easy choice to do what's the best for you and your family.

Here endeth the Tuesday sermon. Amen.

I'm not opposed to subsidies, just those which shore up supposedly private choices. They're not private, they're supported by the state. It's the continued claim by pro-private education enthusiasts that they are genuinely exercising free choice which grates. They're not. They are choosing to be benefited by a state subsidy: charitable status.

This same subsidy enables such schools to exclude the inconvenient, while pretending to include bright working class children.They should pay the full cost. Every. Single. Penny. I really can't see why the pro-private lobby should object to paying their way. What's not to like?

I can assure you that many private school teachers would think hard about teaching at all if they lost access to the Teachers' Superannuation Fund.

It's not for me to say why your schools shouldn't have charitable status, but for you to say why they should. What are they doing, charity-wise, frontpaw

You pay for education because you are part of a larger community, the children of which will be wiping the arse of someone you love, possibly you, in the future, when you're drooling and witless.

90% of parents take child benefit. That's a state subsidy. Working Family's Tax Credit is a state subsidy. The top 40% of the population are the only ones who contribute more in taxation than they take in 'free' education, healthcare and welfare. So if we're talking about the state subsidising the lives of people, let's talk about it. Remember who subsidises who here.

What's actually happening is that the people who send their kids to private school are benefitting from a modest, but indirect tax relief.

No, its up to the Charity Commission to say why schools should have a charity status. Thank God for that.

"I would rather they thank me for subsidising their DCs to study Media Studies."

Nice!

I haven't read all of the answers, just replying to OP.

OP, I think you make a good point. I know a lot of people who are against provate education and who profess to want their children to mix with a cross-section of children. Therefore they send their children to state schools. However, they have moved house to posher areas close to 'naicer' before applying for school places. It seems they only really want their children to mix with a cross-section of middle class children.

We have moved to a 'naicer' area close to a 'naice' school. We have used our money to achieve a better education and are honest about that

And echt - I have no problem with private schools having charitable status because they reduce education costs in the state sector. My area has seen catchments shrink to literally having to be able to see the school from your house because of people not being able to afford private education in this climate. It is costing the LA a lot of money, i.e. our tax, to build new classes for those children

echt Fine if you want wholly independent education but that would also involve a tax rebate to parents paying independent fees.

flatpackhamster the indirect tax relief would be fine if the schools were not exclusive. It's no use going on about Child Benefit, Tax Credits, it's just more whatabout-ism. Do stay on topic. :o

Pooshtun it may be the Charity Commission's job to say which schools should have such status, but you, as an apparent supporter of such status, should be able to justify it, as I have justified my views.

Charitable status doesn't actually mean they are supported by the government, it just means they pay slightly less tax. It's not taking anything from the state. The money that parents pay in fees is already taxed.

So what if pensions are supported? That's for the teachers benefit, not the children or their parents, and these teacher are still teaching children. This country needs them to do that for the good of society, whether they do it in a private or state school is irrelevant. Even if you don't think that's irrelevant, I certainly don't see how you can see it as that important.

The state supports lots of people's pensions. Why should people who educate children be different?

A wholly independent education sector would no more involve a rebate than car ownership means a rebate on public transport.

Oh, and charitable status means next to nothing for many independant schools, because they are run as not for profit organisations ao aren't liable for tax anyway.

Outraged the teachers' pension is important because it's a state subsidy of a private sector. I believe the private sector should be entirely private.

Outraged why are the private schools so reluctant to give up the charitable status? I don't see them knocking on the doors of the Charity Commission to do away with this "next to nothing" irrelevance.

They keep charitable status because it helps them when that have children on bursaries. It also means that money that parents donate to the PTA isn't taxed, the same way as it is for state schools.

I don't see the pensions thing as state subsidy of a private sector, although crudely that's what it is. But it's supporting teachers who educate children that have a right to be educated by the state anyway. I just can't get worked up about that.

Outraged google "working class children on bursaries at independent schools" and see what you find.

I don't get your next sentence, you don't see the pensions as subsidy but they sort of are..

Why do I need to google 'working class children on bursaries'?

Are working class children the only children that you deem worthy of a bursary? Children don't get given bursaries if they parents can afford to pay the fees, there is criteria that they have to meet, and this will be monitored by the CC. Any child whose parents can't afford to pay the fees is worthy of a bursary, working class or not.

By the pensions thing, I meant that it's subsidising teachers, and I don't see hwy that's a bad thing. You think the privat sector should be 100% independant, I don't see why that's neccesary. The NHS does very well out of being able to send its patients to private hospitals, I don't see why children shouldnt have their teachers pensions supported by the state. They are still children who are worthy of, and equally entitled to state support.

I still can't get over the idea that 1600 PCM for a shoebox is affordable. That's the take home salary of someone on about 28k roughly? Isn't the average household income on the UK not a great deal more?

No matter, point is it's hardly affordable. I wouldn't sleep at night taking on that sort of accommodation costs and we are apparently relatively comfortably off.

Do all private schools have charitable status though. I tried to find out about my children's school, and I can't. How would you know?

Echt You want it both ways or just anyway that would penalise those horrible people who have money and choices and who might one day knock that huge chip (or boulder) off your shoulder.

You know hate only eats up the person who is holding on to it.

I don't think they all have charitable status. Most of them have charitable status for their PTA or equivalent though.

I guess you could go to the charities commission website and see if you can find them on there. You woud also be able to see the accounts too if they are on there.

ALL schools have charitable status (or can get it) for their PTA though, not just private ones.

echt

This term 'whataboutism' was conjured up by disgraced leftist journalist Johann Hari, wasn't it? At least that's the first time I saw it.

From what I can tell, as soon as someone exposes the hypocrisy of a leftist, they're accused of 'changing the subject' or 'whataboutism'.