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?

But the thing is, they don't. letting those you charmingly call 'the losers' in to swim sometimes to keep your tax breaks is not a fair trade off.

morethan no, I don't.

I have not EVER said people who don't go to private school are losers. Please do not put words in my mouth. That as made me really cross.

Forget it TOSN.
You have twisted my words and refuse to believe that charitable private schools do anything for the community.

You stick with your thoughts and I know what I think.

morethan Spot on! I bet some of the above posters would backtrack faster than you can say "indie" if their child was offered a full bursary.

Well it must have been your use of the words winners and losers that confused me....

And please not this tired idea trotted out like some amazing truth or insight that we'd all send them private if we could. I certainly wouldn't.

TOSN
Well it must have been your use of the words winners and losers that confused me....

Here is what I wrote "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.

Please note I said the best school meaning best state school OR best private school for their child. There are good and bad schools in both sectors.

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 streaming and setting dies benefit higher attaining pupils. So my son Would benefit from being grouped with other academically very able children. I'm not really sure why I should hold my son back to benefit other children.
I would like equality for all children but I'm not going to use my son as a battering ram to knock down the inequality door.

So those of you who are 100% against selective schools of any kind would send your children to the nearest school even if that meant they were going to be in a school with a curriculum that would not give your child the best opportunity to develop their full potential?

I'm thinking here of the secondary schools in our area 10 years ago when we were trying to decide what to do about our son's secondary education. There were those who didn't offer more than one foreign language. Those who didn't offer all three core science subjects as separate GCSE subjects. Many were struggling to get specialist Maths and Science teachers. Most were clearly focusing all their efforts on pulling the C/D students up to a solid C grade with little energy left to ensure that the A students got their A*.

We decided this wasn't good enough for our son and we paid for him to attend a fee-paying school. Of course everybody should get a gold standard education. The lucky ones who live near good state schools with really effective, well-qualified teachers and a curriculum which challenges all their pupils get that through their taxes.

I am baffled by the opprobrium parents like us get. Would it have been better for us to shrug our shoulders and send our son to a school where he would have been the only year 7 with solid Level 5s across the board and where he would have been bored rigid for at least the first three years? Why would it have benefited him and the UK economy/society not to have had a really rigorous academic grounding, building on the excellent work of his state nursery and primary schools?

YABU. I was lucky enough to get a scholarship to a private secondary school. Something my parents would not have been able to afford in their wildest dreams.

I certainly wasn't enriching the experience of any of my peers in a state primary school. The lessons were understandably directed towards the majority of the class which meant I spent a lot of time sitting doing nothing as I'd already finished my work.

This was noticed and I was given more challenging work or had 'special attention'. This marked me out as 'different' and was hugely embarrassing for me and invited unpleasant comments from my peers (and even their parents!).

I have no doubt that if I'd gone to a state secondary school, I'd have made very sure that I didn't 'stand out' at all.

Allmimsy

Because some people don't understand that life has so many variables. They think that if everyone went to a state school you'd get even numbers of differing standards throughout the years and schools which they think would benefit everyone. They also think that all schools would be suitable and be offering exactly the same standard and syllabus and that we'd all just blindly go to the local school regardless of the individual needs of our children.

In reality of course life is just not that uniform. There will always be different standard heads and more sought after teachers and better course offering etc. In addition to varying levels of parental support and varying levels of pupil needs within areas.

You post sums up exactly how I feel.

Trying to catch up here

What I'm saying about Jayden, yeah absolutely a small class with specialist attention would have helped him. He was struggling with school not because he was unintelligent but because his home life was a constant series of disasters. School could have been a calm place for him, where he knew everyone in his class and his teachers understood what he was going through, where he got to process things and enjoy fun experiences with his mates, an island of sanity in a sea of chaos.

The reason private schools do not do this is because they are not charities. No-one wants their Brainella to sit next to a Jayden. They just do not.

I've got another example. I'll call her Tanique. Tanique was a talented artist. She didn't sit the art exam because her drug addict mother was coming down from whatever she had taken and said that she was going to slit her wrists if Tanique didn't sit with her (until the dealer showed up). Tanique didn't always smell amazing either because washing didn't happen to schedule.

No school can solve problems like that. I know. But I think people are being rather disingenuous here. You send your kids to private school so you don't have Jaydens and Taniques sat near them. It's not that "Gosh, we'd love to have them but they might feel overwhelmed!" It's that if there was an influx of Jaydens and Taniques you would move your DCs to another school in case it was catching.

Fine, admit that...but the school is not a charity then.

I certainly wouldn't move my children to another school due to a Jayden or a Tanique. As long as Jayden and Tanique can keep up academically and not impact on the education of my children then I couldn't give a shiny shit if they are in my child's class. Now if Jayden or Tanique were struggling emotionally and having behavioural issues which put my child at risk of physical harm I would expect the school to do something about it and to keep my child safe, but that would be the case whether it is state or private. If Jayden and Taniques emotional needs are as high as you suggest I would question whether any mainstream state or private school can really provide the support that they need. If I thought the private school were not giving those children the help that they need and just had them there as a tokenistic charity case I would be quite angry with them.

I also think that too many people think private schools are all the same, or that selective schools are.
There are so many different types that are managed in all sorts of different ways.
I do find it odd though people talking about winners and losers, as if it means private schools will make you a winner.
To me its about the right fit for your child, and opportunity whatever the school and by trying to take away charitable status from private schools you are at risk of stopping somebodies chance.
Maybe my dd who will no doubt rely on this when she is older.

The kids were very different. Jayden would be explosively violent (you could normally see what he was about to do and yank him out of the room though). Tanique had fairly severe PTSD and would lose herself for a bit and stare off into space. She was also very anxious and would twitch and jerk at sudden movements.

I am 100% sure individuals like many Mumsnetters would be kind and caring towards those children if they met them. But I am also 100% sure they want those children in their private schools like they'd want a dog with rabies.

Misunreasinable

Ditto. I certainly don't send my dc's to private school for any other reason than for a good education.

Barbierella

We are thinking of a selective specialist school and certainly not looking for a good education, even though the school offers an adequate one and maybe better than some state schools, but not others, certainly not the majority.

This was my point about variables and so many different types of education even within the same sector.

Bursaries and scholarships vary drastically as do fees.
Some offer 100%, free travel and uniform, others its a couple of grand off the fees.
Some offer scholarship in name only and no monetary value.

Shockinglybadteacher - if Jayden is explosively violent and a risk to other children then he shouldn't be in any mainstream state or any private school. No parent wants their child at risk of physical harm regardless of whether they pay for education or not. Tanique would probably be fine as long as she was able to access the mental health support that she probably requires.
My concerns would be for my own child's safety and that those children (Jayden and Tanique) could get the emotional and mental health support that they require. Sometimes children need more specialist education than what mainstream or private schools can offer. If I am a monster for thinking that then I can live with being a monster. A small class with supportive teachers probably isn't nearly enough support for Tanique and certainly not enough for Jayden.

I don't agree that charity is defined by the notion of only helping children who are unlucky enough to be disadvantaged to the point where their parent is a drug addict and doesn't care about their education. I think that children who get bursaries almost always will have parents who think their child's education is very important. Even if you do get a bursary, you still have to buy uniform and show an interest in your child's progress.

But why is it not charity for a child like that whose parents are interested but don't have enough money to benefit from a private school? Children are all different and having parents who care about your education will not help if the school just isn't right.

For the record too, there are certainly private schools that do take children with more complex needs and have specially designed provision to meet their needs. I know of one such school that does this and gets results as good as my nearest selective private school. Parents wouldn't know details about children such as 'Jayden' anyway. That's confidential.

I too can think of several private schools within my county whose specific purpose is to provide for children with additional needs of varying degree.

Lottieandmia

I too knew of such a school, although I'm not sure its still outstanding or still there even.
Every single child there had some sort of additional need or sn.
Are you thinking Norfolk/Suffolk lottie, or do you prefer not to say?
This school was wonderful.

lottie

The school my dd wants to eventually attend is as you describe above. although entry is highly selective and fees are 30k plus. You can be the dc of unemployed parents, or millionaires, and fees are payable on a sliding scale.
If you are totally reliant on benefit you have 100% of everything paid including fees, uniform, travel, excursions etc.

I wasn't thinking of Norfolk/Suffolk but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's impossible to generalise about private schools. They are all so very different. Some are selective and some aren't. And I know from experience that the circumstances of all families whose child attends are kept confidential usually.

But this isn't about whether private schools are all different, all bad, should be closed, are s