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?

echt

That post was for minifingers replying to her accusation that children at private school don't mix.

I found it. 18% don't have charitable status and interestingly £2.5bn extra would need to be found to educate everyone in state schools

www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN05222

Bram, it would probably require amending clauses through primary legislation, and this timely, but it wouldn't be difficult in legislative drafting terms, per se. More c

Ok fine

Add message | Report | Message poster TheWomanTheyCallJayne Fri 18-Jul-14 12:30:49
The amount received is less than a child would need to go to state school.

Why not consider that amount as the cost of paying for that child's basic English maths and science lessons. The fees paid on top cover the rest.

I agree Thewomantheycalljayne.

It seems to slip etch's mind that the tax amount would not even cover the equipment use that many state schools get.

... More complicated drafting for both transitional and permanent institutional rearrangements happens with staggering regularity.

Echt I do.

Having scanned through that document I noticed that all academy schools are also classed as charities. A lot of academies are run by private companies and these should be treated the same as private schools.

Barbieralla the tax amount has not slipped my mind. It is matter of justice, not balancing the books.

The simple matter is that if you want private service, then pay the full cost. The analogy is the car driver not whining about taxes because they don't use a bus, yet so many, if not all, private education fans go on about their individual circumstances, while not considering the general principle.

I'll spell it out for the hard of thinking:

Private education = a car with state-subsidised petrol and running costs, but not very one can access.

State education = a bus that anyone can board.

Hmm - i have shifted opinion on this thread.

Were there a way of removing charitable status that didnt involve the absolute dissolution of the school be found then i think it would be a good idea to get rid of the status.

It would mean a slight increase in fees (200 per year they said in the source doc). But if as a result every single piece of good community work that every single public school did would also get stopped then fine.

Bursaries and scholarships - upto the school. But opening the paying fields and facilities to local schools. Nope shut that off. Let em whistle.

thats what you want isnt it? Surely - the only reason you want to remove the status is to stop the community works isnt it? Cos if you are stumping up 14k a year in fees £200 quid will make no odds. But you will feel better wont you.

Barbierella- it does seem to be getting ignored doesn't it.

Does anyone know what percentage of private students are only there due to bursaries?

Echt to zoom in better on the metaphor a car with 1/2 a windscreen wiper provided by the state that people can use after they have paid for bus ticket but dont intend to use. There thats better.

And sorry but life is unfair. There will always be people who have more than you or I. Some of those people chose to spend the money on their kids. Stop worrying about how I or anyone else spends my money and worry about yourself.

So to disagree with a socialist is to be hard of thinking? The most laughable comment i have read for a long time. The intellectual search for social justice that has led to the death of millions and the enslavement of billions. That is somehow the opposite of hard of thinking?

echt. I pay the fees. If the fees increase then I pay the extra too. Are you suggesting I rock up to the school and tell them I want to pay more and could they please stop being a charitable trust? That is faintly ridiculous.

I get lots of things for nothing which I could pay for but because I am eligible for them then I take them up. I am in Scotland so get free prescriptions. DD2 paid no fees for her 4 years at uni. Same with the school. I pay what I am asked to pay and in a return my DD1 gets her education. I also pay extra for her to sit her exams etc.

echt

"The simple matter is that if you want private service, then pay the full cost."

I will also spell it out for those who don't get it. The tax relief is not so school fees are cheaper, it is to ensure that money and time are spend on the surrounding community which includes state schools. So, in fact the charitable status and tax reduction is actually assisting those not at the school rather than visa versa.

The charitable status is only worth 200 quid a year per child?

Odd, I agree if that is the increase in fees (god knows it is just a drop in the ocean of fee increases every year), I will happily get rid of charitable status, forget about opening up facilities to the public and slam down the gates.

It is a negligible benefit for practically all private school parents who would rather not have the red tape and the mean-spirited carping that comes with such a trifling amount.

The tax relief is not so school fees are cheaper, it is to ensure that money and time are spend on the surrounding community which includes state schools.

So, in fact the charitable status and tax reduction is actually assisting those NOT at the school rather than visa versa.

sorry double posted

YABU. Large classes don't suit every child. Although I can see what you are saying about creaming off very bright children, bursaries don't only go to children who are very bright and who would sail through any state school and achieve highly. They are sometimes given to children who the school feels have a great deal of potential and who would be best placed at that school for that potential to be realised.

damn right blueshoes.

but the carping wouldn't stop. It never does. It never will.

This is peculiarly British. Illustrated by a popular motoring show. In America, a kid will see a nice luxury car go past and say to themselves "if i work hard, i can get a good job and maybe get a car like that" here it would be "thats not fair - i dont have one - i'll tax him out of it".

Years of blighted mindset that the way to deal with unfairness is to pull everyone down.

ThewomanthecallJayne

It's as though some people think school fees are reduced because of the tax status rather the tax reduction being used to give something back to the community.

I just think there are a lot of posters on here who hate private schooling or anyone with sufficient money to allow them to have it as a choice and cannot see the wood for the trees.

It has been established the tax breaks don't go to allow the fees to be lower but to help the community but no one is listening

I wasn't going to engage but the argument that high achieving children don't need support made me see red.

They are left to drift because they are doing "well" when measured against the average. This does not mean that they are achieving to their potential. Or that they are fulfilled. The ability of schools to ignore the extent to which they are failing bright (or generally talented in other ways) DC is appalling. If they were allowed to neglect provision for those struggling to reach the (entirely arbitrary) targets to the same extent and in the same blasé manner, then there would be a massive outcry.

This is why the parents of high achieving DC end up fighting tooth and nail to get them bursaries, grammar school places, etc, just as parents of DC with SN fight to get provision which meets their DC's needs.

If private schools charitable status allows/forces them to do a bit more of this than they would otherwise do, then it more than justifies the cost IMHO.

I know littlewhitebag.

It's been said since the beginning of the thread that state school pupils would potentially lose out if charitable status was lost but people are so green eyed they can't see it.

These threads always end like this. Weird private school bashing from people who don't use them!