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?

Bit childish, Nit? It doesn't say "to those who can pay it". Move on.

Explain how educating children whose parents pay for it is charitable, either to them or to anyone else?

If your children attend state school, you are paying well below the market rate (via taxes) for your child's education. Even a person on minimum wage or JSA or other benefits or non taxpayer is not asked to pay more into the state system.
It is only fair that people who pay the market rate for a private education, IN ADDITION to paying taxes for a place they aren't using, receive a quid pro quo for doing so.

Most private schools don't fund bursaries from the fees of other children at the school. At least the ones who have their books in order don't.

But isn't the product you're buying the quid pro quo? You pay your money and you get what you paid for. That's usually the end of the matter.

The 'paying taxes for a service you don't use' argument is silly. Think of all the health service I've paid for that I won't use - should I get something back? Or the buses, which I choose not to use, in most instances, and free up a space on them by driving a car?

If the government really wants to increase social mobility it should 1. Bring back the Assisted Place Scheme, whereby LEA paid the fees for poorer bright children and 2. Increase the number of grammar schools.

If the government wanted more bright children to be educated away from less bright children it should do that, yes. Not sure how that helps social mobility, which I would take to apply to all children whether academic or not.

As the average fees are at least £3k a term, it is not 'a silly argument'. If you feel hard done by because I choose to pay to educate my child, I'm sure any private or free school would be more than happy to consider an application on your child's behalf.

I don't see how teaching mixed ability groups all together helps ANY pupil, whether they be G&T or less academic than their peers.

I just want to repeat a question (just curious). For those people who believe regular fee paying private schools should lose charitable status and pay tax, should church schools, grammar schools and academies which are also selective (and some get private funding) in nature also be taxed on their funding?

"I don't see how teaching mixed ability groups all together helps ANY pupil, whether they be G&T or less academic than their peers."

Who does that?

YANBU.

Some private schools very kindly allow a few clever but poor pupils to attend their schools for free, or for very small fees. They pay for this by applying for charitable status, which allows them to escape corporation tax. I see no element of charity in this. So I don't see why they should be allowed charitable status.

Most of the discussion so far seems to assume that a private education is usually better than a state one. I can see that the facilities might be and the moneyed connections the pupils could make there may bring them benefits in later life, but there's no guarantee that the quality of the teaching is any better. In fact, most private schools employ teachers who are less qualified and less rigorously inspected than those in state schools.

I went to state school, my husband went private. We met when we attended the same university.

Most parents will fight to get the best schooling for their children. I hope that they're all qualified to discern which is the best option, and not blinded by marketing, sports facilities, league tables or a perception that you always get what you pay for.

Where did I say I felt hard-done-by?

Do what you like: I just agree with the OP that private schools are not charities.

I wonder if Grammar schools usually admit children who do not pass their entrance tests, but could benefit from their system? Or did they do this in the past with the 11 plus?

Applying lots of the same criteria, Grammar schools, church schools and Academies are not charities either (and can be highly selective) but not only are they regarded as charities but also get huge state (some also private) funding on top. Over and above the ordinary state school. It's interesting how people are not saying these bastions should be divested of their charitable status too.

Pangurban
I am one of many people who believe that state funded schools should not have ANY entrance criteria other than the carbon footprint of getting the kids there.

Selection by god, gonads or tutored exams should not be available in state schools

No, I'm fairly sure they don't!

And yes, I do also have an issue with any state-funded selective school, especially if it has charitable status.

"t's interesting how people are not saying these bastions should be divested of their charitable status too." I don't think they have charitable status do they? But if they do it should certainly be taken away- on the route to abolishing them.

I don't think anyone is calling for the outright abolition of private schools.

But in case they were - the closure of private schools would result in a huge surplus of spare teachers/spare school buildings wouldn't it?

"I am one of many people who believe that state funded schools should not have ANY entrance criteria other than the carbon footprint of getting the kids there."

^^ this

I despise what the last two governments have done to the school system in the UK.

I have to go an lie down when I hear ministers talking about how important it is for parents to be able to choose the school which is right for their child. The bottom line is that in the UK, if you are a rich church goer with clever/musical/sporty children your choice is almost unlimited. If you don't have a spare 1K at the end of every month, your children aren't outstanding, and you don't go to church, you don't generally get to choose. Not in a meaningful way.

"I don't see how teaching mixed ability groups all together helps ANY pupil, whether they be G&T or less academic than their peers."

I found it very helpful studying alongside people who were brighter than me. It really encouraged me to raise my game and helped me broaden my frame of reference.

And the evidence doesn't support streaming or setting for the majority of pupils, except (possibly) in maths.

This is from a DOE website setting out the evidence relating to education policy:

"Pupils with similar levels of current attainment are grouped together either for specific lessons on a regular basis (setting or regrouping) or as a whole class (streaming or tracking). The assumption is that it will be possible to teach more effectively or more efficiently with a narrower range of attainment in a class.

How effective is it?
Overall, ability grouping appears to benefit higher attaining pupils and be detrimental to the learning of mid-range and lower attaining learners. On average, ability grouping does not appear to be an effective strategy for raising the attainment of disadvantaged pupils, who are more likely to be assigned to lower groups. Summer born pupils and students from ethnic minority backgrounds are also likely to be adversely affected by ability grouping."

So there you go.

It disadvantages the majority of children.

"Life isn't fair, it just isn't. It never has been and it probably never will."

Correct, but as a society the majority support the idea that a meritocracy is desirable and that equality of opportunity is something all children should have. The job of governments is to try to find a way to make this happen.

"We should be looking for solutions to ensure everyone receives a good education and not thinking the solution is to drag the wealthy/lucky and more fortunate down and blame them for everything."

And IMO one of the key problems impacting on the quality of education in British schools is the system of educational apartheid that we have created. The existence of private and selective schools doesn't have a neutral effect on non-selective state schools (which the majority of children attend) - it damages them.

minifingers

If there were no private school's there would not be surplus of schools and teachers because presumably the children currently at them would need a school to go to.

Also, if there were no private school's there would be far more pockets of ridiculous house pricing and effectively state funded schools where the wealthy top up funds with PTA events to pay for anything and everything.

Whether we like it or not, life is competitive. People will always be competing to find the best school (state or otherwise) for their children. Where there is competition there will always be winners and losers.

The point is that it is not totally up to the government, it is also up to ALL parents to get involved and help raise funds etc in order for the state system to work where there are no failing schools. I wish there was a Utopian world where everyone would put in as much effort as each other and all get the same rewards. Unfortunately in life there are a million variables and this sort of system could never work.

It is ok for people to talk of unfairness and the lucky ones etc, but how many who object would stop their dc from going.
Don't we all want the best education for our children.
So if this happened to be one of these schools and your child showed an interest, you were poor and they were G&T, would you really deny them.
I think not, which makes me surmise the objectors are jealous and trying to make out their objections are due to the unfairness to everyone else.
I smell bull

Right barbie and in this red in tooth and claw world of competition, how exactly do you see the role of charity? As a prop for the 'winners'? Because that sits a bit wrongly with me.

morethan oooh you got me. Oh no wait, you didn't. I would not send my child privately in any circumstances, ever. Not that that was the point of the thread. One could in theory happily agree that one might use private schools and still not think they are charities.

TOSN

Right barbie and in this red in tooth and claw world of competition, how exactly do you see the role of charity? As a prop for the 'winners'? Because that sits a bit wrongly with me.

But private school have charity status ONLY if they adhere to helping the community.

How many times do I have to say this..............grrrrr....

Children NOT at the school must benefit for them to have charitable status.

ONS

Do you not think that schools should have charity status to enable those who couldn't afford it to attend.
I am not assuming that private education is always better, but can see how a G*T child would thrive in a selective/specialist school.