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?

"Hahahaha to your MN example where you have just clearly described the Mouldies!! Yeah it did happen!"

That did cross my mind as I was writing it.

And mumsnet is poorer without them....

I'm not really sure whether you are just against the charitable status, or against private schools altogether? Or even against all selective schools?

If you're complaining about the charitable status - YANBU. I've never understood why private schools have charitable status and tax breaks. They are businesses pure and simple. Or if they are not for profit then presumably they wouldn't pay tax anyway?

If you're complaining about private schools or selective schools then YABU (and yawn). Particularly since your concern seems to stem not from principle but from the fact that your own DS can't get in

"As to forcing my child to attend a school not of my choosing - not a chance, we would emigrate first - again though, I don't think it will ever happen."

It's amazing how hurling the toys out the pram and flouncing is such a common response when there anyone hints to wealthy people that they may not be able to have their own way when it comes to taxes and privileges.

10 years ago you would have made the same argument that we 'couldn't afford' to provide education to these children. But state schools have hugely increased capacity to cope with growing demand, and can continue to do so.

I don't think they have increased capacity by nearly enough in lots of areas. Lots of children in my city don't have reception places each September, they are travelling many miles in taxis to get to school each day. Many other children are being taught in substandard Portacabins. It is widely known that many areas have a severe shortage of school places.

If you're complaining about the charitable status - YANBU. I've never understood why private schools have charitable status and tax breaks. They are businesses pure and simple

It's down to the same reason why universities also have charitable status.

DS is at a private school. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about its charitable status. The school does quite a bit with the local community (opening up its facilities etc), but if charitable status was dropped across the sector we'd still educate our children there.

Somewhere around 25% of children in this area (where the school is, not where I live!) are privately educated so if private schools were banned all together, I suspect the state system would have a rather hard transition moving all of the additional students into the existing schools!

"As to forcing my child to attend a school not of my choosing - not a chance, we would emigrate first"

It's amazing how hurling toys out of the pram and flouncing is such a characteristic response of well-off people when threatened with tax increases or restrictions or a curb on their privileges.

Where's your loyalty?

Nobody is suggesting that your dc's live on a prison ship or something. State schools turn out lots of successful and clever children you know.

"I don't think they have increased capacity by nearly enough in lots of areas. Lots of children in my city don't have reception places each September, they are travelling many miles in taxis to get to school each day. Many other children are being taught in substandard Portacabins. It is widely known that many areas have a severe shortage of school places."

And meanwhile the conservatives educate their own children privately and continue to squander tax payer's money on supporting private schools.

Anyway, I'm not supporting abolishing private schools, just removing their charitable status and using the money to support low achieving children in state schools

Not bothered about supporting high achieving children in the state sector? Do only low achieving children deserve support to maximise potential?

You can indeed Charlie.

What a good moral lesson to teach your children.

Rich people can do what they like and their only responsibility is to themselves.

"Anyway, I'm not supporting abolishing private schools, just removing their charitable status and using the money to support low achieving children in state schools

Not bothered about supporting high achieving children in the state sector? Do only low achieving children deserve support to maximise potential?"

Um, 'high achieving' children are already achieving.

Highly.

That is only one part of the 'helping disadvantaged' children aspect
The other is opening their grounds/swimming pools/theatres/other facilities for the local state schools to use

My (state) Sixth form held all the drama productions at the local private school's theatre. Without that, they wouldn't have been able to offer Drama and theatre studies as an option.

My (private) secondary was the only school for miles around to have an indoor swimming pool and an athletics track, so was used by probably close to half a dozen schools for their swimming lessons and sports days.

£100m clawed back in taxes is not going to build every school a new pool and theatre and I'd be surprised if many private schools want to keep being so charitable when they are no longer charities

Minifingers: "In a year's time 5 of the 6 children in the top set in each year 5 class (my ds's class/set) will be 'creamed off' into private/church/grammar schools and my son will be going to the local comprehensive without that group of children to learn alongside. He can't go to a private/church school and has little chance of a grammar place. His experience of education will be poorer because of the missing clever children that he currently works alongside, and who enhance his learning experience."

The principle of charitable status is just a convenient stick to private schools when all you care about is removing the ability of the marginally wealthy parents of clever children to afford private schools. If their children were thick, would you care?

It is not as if the 100m savings the govt makes from abolishing the charitable status would go into improving state education - dream on.

It sounds like the politics of envy.

Just because they are achieving doesn't mean they don't need any support. Every child deserves appropriate support to reach their potential regardless of ability.
To be honest you sound very sour and can't see beyond the needs of your own child. A gifted child needs appropriate support in the classroom, he needs work differentiated if he is to learn. Or do you think that because he is already achieving more than your child that he should be sidelined whilst your child attempts to catch up?

"Perhaps there's more to a child failing in education & perhaps throwing money at the problem won't actually help?"

It seems to work well in the private sector though doesn't it?

Average spend on a state school education per child is about half that of their privately educated peers.

Are they exempt from all taxes, like VAT, or just on profits?

YABU

The Charitable status is a tax break (i.e. a saving on the tax the school pays to the government). If private schools' charitable status was abolished:

1. fees would need to increase and some schools would close, meaning they would pay no tax at all (i.e. less money to the government);

2. 1000s of parents would be priced out of private schools so more children would need places at state schools, costing the tax payer more and putting more pressure on limited resources.

I'm not a private school parent, and I think it's great that some parents are willing to pay twice so leaving more resources for the rest.

And meanwhile the conservatives educate their own children privately and continue to squander tax payer's money on supporting private schools.

Just as the Labour Party did before them. There isn't a political party in the Uk with a realistic chance of being in government who thinks it's a good idea to abolish private schools.

I work in an independent school and have worked in state schools too. I prefer my quality of life working in the independent sector. And for the poster upthread that asked my teaching qualification was funded by an independent school and by myself so I haven't 'benefited' anymore than anyone else with an undergraduate degree at a British university.

minifingers
You are not 'throwing money at the problem' by adding £100m into the annual education budget
You are increasing the budget by 0.1%
Please explain how these new-found riches will overnight improve the lot of the kids at the bottom of the socioeconomic pile...

Ah now that's an argument I've heard ever since my 'clever' DS started school.

Which is - No your child can't set up a maths club/chess club, there isn't the money available. Your child is clever, your child will do well regardless so he can basically be not bothered with & stuck on a table by himself for maths work. Yes your child is talented at maths but we can't stretch him further as the rest of the class has to be considered.

Screw the 'low achieving' argument, why should my child be abandoned & not fulfil his own potential as he isn't classed as low achieving!

The private school in our our area allows 3 local primary schools use it's swimming pool for lessons four year 3/4/5/6 pupils so I personally have no gripe about it but that's extent of my knowledge!