to want to abolish private schools' charitable status?

[minifingers]

Which costs the tax payer 100 million squids a year.

Schools justify having charitable status by saying they offer financial help to 'disadvantaged' children.

The 'disadvantaged' children they refer to are actually, almost to a boy/girl, highly intelligent, academically successful children who have outstandingly supportive parents (otherwise they wouldn't be researching bursaries/applying for schools/preparing their children for exams). In other words, not at all disadvantaged. These are the children who generally succeed very highly in the state sector too.

I personally think that tax-payers money should go towards supporting those children who are failing in education, not to those children who are already succeeding. Surely it's more beneficial for the children who are currently failing most severely in the state sector to have tax payers money spent on them, as these are the children who the tax payer ends up supporting through benefits/the prison system.

In addition, 'skimming off' this top layer of very clever children and sending them to be educated separately from other ordinary kids impacts on the learning of all the other children in the state sector - any of us who have done a degree/been in education know what a difference it makes to be in a class where there are a lot of clever/motivated people, how much more enjoyable and productive learning is.

Just to draw a mumsnet analogy - imagine if all the funniest and most interesting posters here were offered their own site - 'mumsnet gold', where they could be funny and interesting all day long and those of us who are not as funny and clever would be excluded. Imagine how much of a loss that would be to everyone here? we could rename the new non-gold site 'netmums2'

So, AIBU?

Take the £100000000 currently given to private schools and give it to state schools with the largest number of underachieving students to spend on supporting their education instead?

"No topsy but I know that that is actually what a state comprehensive is! and does, by actual definition! And I also know that areas with 800 odd children in them almost always include a bit of diversity. And I also know that it's not necessarily the schools with th wealthiest catchments that perform the best. I'm not claiming special wisdom! That's just what a state comprehensive actually IS."

It may well be, but the fact is that not all state schools are equal and people go to extraordinary lengths to get into good ones. I refuse to lie and cheat to get into a good catchment like other people do and I'm not willing to pretend I've suddenly turned into a devote Catholic either. Our local state schools are NOT good. If they were my children would be going to them.

hak It is honestly true. There is absolutely no divide. However both schools are based in a fairly wealthy, university town where for most parents education is prioritised.

My 16 yo is off to stay over with some friends from the state school this evening. I don't see how you can't believe this. They are not braying posho's at her school, just normal children.

As part of their charitable status they have to do "good works", my words by the way. I know our local private school is lending their minibuses all summer to various groups and that their sports grounds are available to other users and they have set up various sports sessions over the summer for community users. I'm sure that's not all, I'm pretty sure they have to set out their charitable aims in order to qualify/maintain charitable status, and that doesn't just mean bursaries and scholarships.

My dd was being chatted up in town by a boy from our "local" private school- when one of his friends came up and said "Wrong school, Rory" and led him off!

It has become a catch phrase in her school........

Hakluyt, catchment area is certainly taken into account by prospective house buyers with children. When looking at the estate agents lists, we checked against the corresponding catchment area map from the school we were thinking about.

Didn't buy in that area as we went elsewhere for schooling. The house prices were extortionate in the catchment area for the great state school we wanted. Would have been easier finding annual school fees.

QOTM Private schools don't poach teachers. How ridiculous. They recruit teachers in the same way as any school would.

That is like saying any person educated at any expense of the state needs to go and work in the public sector and that the private sector is poaching them.

So because my child has parents who give a shit so he is at a slight advantage to Jayden so isn't in a bad enough position to deserve it. This is the child who I would get phonecalls to say it had got too much for him and had run out of school to the woods again, could I come and talk him down. Or I would go in and they would say he hasn't done anything all day and has spent it sat on his mat in his corner of the hall. Or they had let the taunting get so much that he had lashed out. It wasn't even a bad school, my daughter was fine there and the ofsted was good. He was bored and different (and supposedly add, that's what the paed said, but I still think he's slightly hfa) and needed stretching which he is getting at his non selective prep which he got a bursary for going by our finances. I think it's a shame Jayden didn't have someone to say let's apply for you.

The only losers if you take away charitable status are the children who can't afford these schools but benefit from them anyway. My eldest two definitely would and I suspect my daughter and youngest son would lose out too because the local public school might not allow the local primary schools to use their pool and other facilities. The children who haven't got parents that can afford to move catchments.

It'll just put a bigger divide between the haves and have nots.

There are some fairly comprehensive, publicly available statistics, topsy, that allow anyone to know the diversity figures for any state-funded (as opposed to state-subsidised) school. Those statistics are regularly analysed to provide LA, county and national trends. Marvellous stuff.

I intend to send my child to a private secondary and may be forced to send him to a private primary because of the ludicrous admissions system near me that means my child has no hope of getting into any local state schools.

That doesn't mean I can't see very clearly that the charitable status of private schools is, frankly, risible. If I'm going to pay my way, I'd rather, you know, pay my way.

Bram, you're aware that legislation can be amended without abolishing an entire Act, right? It would be easy, in a legislative sense, to amend the charitable status of one category without affecting the others.

The whole catchment area issue came to our attention when we viewed a house in the area when with our babe in arms. The owner pointed out to us that his house was in the catchment area.

Yes of course it happens, pangur ban. There is a primary school near us with a catchment of about 6 inches where dog kennels cost 3 million. But I get a little tired or the constant "only people who have bought into posh catchments can possibly be happy with state education". And if I hear the word "leafy" again I might scream.

Jayden didn't even have parents to advocate for him. His dad we didn't speak of and his mum was in the jail a bit (which is when social services took over)

Believe me, if I told you Jayden's whole story, you would cry. I did. I'm not doing it here because it wouldn't be right. Being bored and having special needs (possibly, if they have been diagnosed) is unfortunate, but also not even slightly in the same league.

There are people who have had it worse than your DC. Just saying.

"I don't believe privately educated children do save the govt money.
The marginal ie extra cost, of slipping a child into a state school classroom is very low .Little more than the cost of the stationery they use and the chair they sit on.Probably less than the current £200 per child being lost currently in tax revenue."

I don't think that's right. Schools are funded on a per capita basis, so each transferring pupil will immediately cost several thousand per year in actual spending rather than a couple of hundred lost from theoretical tax yield. Also the numbers would mean new buildings, classrooms, equipment etc as it would be quite an expansion of the state system. Which is struggling with increased numbers of school age children already.

Minifingers

I notice you have not commented at all on the links stating what some charitable schools do for some state schools.

You have chosen to turn a blind eye to the glaringly obvious fact that if private school lost their charitable status many state school pupils would lose out on their pool facilities etc.

You have also chosen to ignore the fact that the extra money raised through taxation would not make any impact for the vast majority of low achieving pupils either.

Lottiedoubtie more and more excuses for why no-one wants to help the kid I described. "Gosh, we're already providing people with the cachet of attending a private school with social networks, especially if we're a feeder school for Fettes or Gordonstoun. It's education, what more do you want?"

Bloody hell this is offensive. My years spent working for an educational charity providing opportunities for 'Jayden' and his peers were what he needed. He was also being supported in some fantastic inner city comps which were set up for his needs and he had access to the relevant professionals. Yes, funding sources was cut and I lost my job, and Jayden lost a lot of his support this was very bloody sad. In fact there are Jayden's all over the country not getting all the support they need.

The answer is not give Jayden a place in an independent school. Why? Because the school is not set up to meet his needs, very few independent school staff have the range of experience I have deliberately sought out in my career and he would be failed by the system in most independent schools, probably worse than he is currently being failed by the state.

Does that mean that the schools are failing all the other children (wealthy parents AND bursaries)? No of course it doesn't. Most independents are excellent at what they do.

Jayden is not the only child in the country worthy of help and support to reach his potential.

There is an argument for the setting up of more charitable independent schools of the type that would/could help Jayden and his peers. That rather goes against the argument of shutting them all down that the OP is advocating though.

It's distasteful to say to one charity 'stop doing what you do, there are more vulnerable people who need help'. That will always be the case 'why help Jayden? He has a roof over his head, some children don't we should only help homeless children, or orphan children, or very sick and homeless children etc... Etc...'

It would be fine to argue that more needs to be done for low achieving pupils, I agree with that wholeheartedly but to suggest that high achievers shouldn't care whether they go to Oxford or not because "they will get a job anyhow" is insane.

We live in a global environment and we MUST ensure our brightest are competing with the rest of the world. Just as we MUST help our lowest achievers out of a life on benefits. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

"It's distasteful to say to one charity 'stop doing what you do, there are more vulnerable people who need help'. "

It isn't if the charity concerned is devoted to providing a privileged education for the children of the wealthy!

Some posters on here seem to belong in a Monty Python sketch......

Oh and in answer to someone else's point, not all bursaries are achievement based either. Some are, and the better publicised ones certainly are but there are many bursaries awarded on other grounds. They are not as well advertised because there aren't enough of them to go around everyone who would apply. Again, a shortage of something good not a reason to ban it.

The answer is not give Jayden a place in an independent school. Why? Because the school is not set up to meet his needs

That's convenient a shame, isn't it? But of course, a troubled child with a difficult background would be utterly at sea in a small class or near a swimming pool, or whatever it is that the private schools excel at doing. His needs will be much better served at the comprehensive which the children there have shunned.

No charity has "to the children of the wealthy" as part of its charitable aims.

Lots of charities, not just schools, have 'education' as their aim.

Lots of charities, not just schools, charge fees for services.

This really is a 'be careful what you wish for' situation.

I don't agree hakluyt. But I am doing my best not to insult you personally, please afford me the same courtesy.

I don't see the children of wealthy parents inherently undeserving as you seem to. I agree on the point of widening access being desirable. I disagree that removing charitable status would achieve this, because I know it would in fact achieve the exact the opposite.

Urgh, poor typing coming through there, I apologise.

Jayden needs the support of qualified and appropriately trained adults far more than he needs nice playing fields and access to a swimming pool.

"I don't see the children of wealthy parents inherently undeserving as you seem to"

I don't think they are inherently undeserving. I think they are inherently undeserving of a private education subsidised by charitable status.

I'd get rid of all private schools, all academies, all free schools and all religious schools. This society is fucked up until everyone can learn to be together as human beings. And I'd bring in a postcode lottery system to stop certain comprehensives becoming middle class enclaves.

I am a secondary school teacher and have worked in an all-girls' grammar (prestigious one) and rough as hell inner city comps. The children from the m/class backgrounds already have plenty of advantages in life - they don't need extra at the expense of the oiks.

Also, if only comps were available I fully expect certain politicians would suddenly have much more of an interest in funding an amazing educational experience for all children and not just selling off schools to the Co-op etc for kids to be turned into pleb-fodder with no chance of escaping from being in the producer class.

Nobody thinks the children of the wealthy are undeserving! I'm very egalitarian on this: I think they're exactly as deserving as the children of the non-wealthy. No less, and no more!

I don't think my children or the children of the wealthy are more deserving of a good education than any other children. I think all children should be offered a good education. Sadly this does not always happen.

I do however, believe that it is my choice to use what resources i have available to ensure the best outcomes for my own children. We all have this right. Some are more fortunate than others in the resources they have to facilitate this. I know i am very, very lucky. My children know this too.