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?

Soom schools do take their charitable status seriously, at my son's school, 88% are on a bursery, with 13% of them not paying any fees. School uniform is provided free, and the sports uniform can either be bought second hand (crested) or plain from a supermarket.

They do a lot of work with the local schools too.

Why would you want to put Jayden and Tanique in an environment where they constantly feel inferior (which they will because their home life is so opposite to that of their peers

I'm a bit confused; I thought private schools were full of children of all kinds, from the quite wealthy to the perfectly normal who have made a lot of sacrifices because they care? all the different kinds of children that there are? So how can there be a 'polar opposite' to such multiplicity of background?

(Or could it be that they do all have a least one thing in common.....?)

The point is that there is no scrutiny. Schools decide for themselves what is sufficient community involvement. Which some, I presume particularly some of the ancient foundations, will take very seriously. Others not so much.

Nit exactly. .

Private school is either a place where all children are welcomed or it's not. It makes no sense to say "We welcome children of all backgrounds! Er, apart from that one. And the other one. And we're not sure about that one either. Or that. Or that...."

You can't have it both ways!

People are always saying there is so much more diversity in private schools............

It's so diverse that if you're poor and disadvantaged, you will feel 'inferior' and 'the polar opposite' to everyone else there. I mean, I feel kind of like I wasted my time nodding and agreeing that there are all sorts there, really.

I have said in previous posts that Jayden and Tanique might struggle in any mainstream school but I think it isn't hard to see that most children at private school will have parents who show some level of interest, after all they have bothered to fill in application forms and bursary forms or spend a lot of money. Even those who board for parental convenience and have little contact with their parents for weeks on end have somewhere to go at the end of the term.

Private school is either a place where all children are welcomed or it's not. It makes no sense to say "We welcome children of all backgrounds! Er, apart from that one. And the other one. And we're not sure about that one either. Or that. Or that....

Funny that because my SLD child isn't welcome at mainstream state school either.........they aren't sure about him.

Well, I hope they haven't said he can't come in miss. I absolutely agree with you that private school parents will tend to have more invested in ways not just financial, in their children's schooling. I suspect that's why they tend to get better resukts; because there aren't the parents who don't care.

It's just that that particular explanation for why private schools get better results (not just that they're selective, because of course some will let you in if you're only rich but not specially clever, but that they're self-selecting) has been dismissed so many times on MN, and I've so often seen the argument that if only we'd take our blinkers off, we'd understand that private schools are full of all kinds, that I'm quite surprised and refreshed and even a bit vindicated to hear someone admit that they're actually not.

No schools are truly full of all kinds. Mainstream state schools exclude pupils with behavioural problems, hence we have PRUs. They exclude pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties and assign them to EBD schools. They exclude pupils with SLD and they get assigned to specialist SLD schools. When children from those above categories attend mainstream schools they are often given regular fixed term exclusions or put on part time timetables.
We don't have a single school in any sector that can meet the needs of every type of child.
My youngest son (not the one with SLD) attends a private school with financial assistance. His school doesn't have charitable status. My son has a lot of pastoral needs and his school meet them well. His previous (state) school didn't meet his pastoral needs well at all. So yes, I am biased towards private education as I have reaped the benefits myself for my child. I do believe that many state schools could have met his needs too, just not the one he was at. But why do his school make an extra effort pastorally for a child on hefty financial assistance when they don't even have charitable status (they were aware of his
needs before he joined the)?

Well, I hope they haven't said he can't come in miss.

He has never been in mainstream, it was made clear from the outset that they couldn't meet his needs.

miss both of my two examples were in mainstream school - Jayden had a younger brother with severe cerebral palsy who wasn't in mainstream education. I think I am expressing myself poorly here, and why I think a small class would have worked for them.

One to one with Jayden was a bit of a "hide the knives" scenario. He was in a class of 30 children. The teacher used to say "I dinnae get paid enough for this". He was violent - we took all pointy and stabby things off him but he used to hide them about his person. (He did end up, eventually, expelled and finally in a YOI)

The thing is that his behaviour could be calmed and he could produce really good work. He was never at all aggressive towards me, and one of the reasons he gave is "You're not rude" (he was used to be shouted at and disciplined to the point where that was just how he regarded school, a place where everyone was angry with him). One day he wrote a thing which he titled Jayden My Life. He asked me for permission to do it and he explained "This is why I am a wee bit bad sometimes". It was his life story, and it was horrific.

One day I pulled him out of class and he was pacing and said to me "I'm no' very bright, am I?" I told him he was bright indeed. He thought I was saying it to be kind.

Perhaps in a small class he would have had some peace. People could have spent time with him and worked with him. He might not have gone to the jail. He would have experienced a place where no one was angry with him for existing.

Would it not be worthwhile trying?

So basically, OP, you'd like to shut all private schools, so that your DC has their friends to learn alongside. Stuff those DC's choices, or their parents' choices - they must do what helps your DC above all else. Right?

I can't afford to send my DC to private school either, but I would not wish to restrict the choices of others for the benefit of my DC.

miss both of my two examples were in mainstream school - Jayden had a younger brother with severe cerebral palsy who wasn't in mainstream education. I think I am expressing myself poorly here, and why I think a small class would have worked for them.

I think I do understand.
Just because they were in mainstream school doesn't mean it was the right place for them. A school with specialist emotional support workers linked with CAMHS would be a better solution for children like Jayden and Tanique. In order to educate children with problematic emotional needs well they need appropriate and MH support. Their MH is paramount.

Bronya - my OP was about abolishing private school's charitable status, not closing private schools.

But actually, as you are mentioning it, if closing private schools which only serve 6% of uk children improved outcomes for the other 94%, then I think there'd be an argument for it.

The rights of a small, powerful minority should never take precedence over the right to equality of opportunity of the majority.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the 6% are more powerful than the 94%?

How do you propose finding the extra £2.5bn that it is estimated would be needed to educate everyone in state schools?

Extra question: how would you prevent people from providing tutoring, home ed and other things which could mean that some children receive a different educational experience to others?

"how would you prevent people from providing tutoring, home ed and other things which could mean that some children receive a different educational experience to others?"

I wouldn't. Nor would I stop people buying books, which I once heard suggested on a thread defending private education.

I just want private schools not to have charitable status.

"OP was about abolishing private school's charitable status, not closing private schools."

As pointed out repeatedly on the thread, the only way to "abolish" charitable status is to close the charity (ie school). Giving charitable assets to private individuals/companies is (I think, anyone know better?) unprecedented. Removing 'education' as a charitable aim would hit many charities other than schools.

AuntieStella it doesn't go by categories. When it comes to private schools, removing fee paying schools in the UK which cater to certain sections of the population from charitable status would not prevent all charitable work in the field of education ever.

I wouldn't. Nor would I stop people buying books, which I once heard suggested on a thread defending private education.

I'm glad to hear that but minifingers had stated that the rights of a small powerful minority shouldn't take precedence over equality of the majority. We cannot ever eradicate imbalance. Abolishing private schools or removing charitable status will not eradicate inequality as some parents will just do other things which continue any equality.
In any case I actually don't think that private schools are better than state schools in all cases.

"We cannot ever eradicate imbalance."

No - but given the evidence that high levels of inequality in society lead to a poorer quality of life for everyone (including the wealthy), there is no excuse for governments to stop trying.

Personally I think the biggest argument for trying our very very best not to segregate children by income, race and religion is that it undermines social cohesion. I think our current system, which emphasises choice, but actually only realistically grants choice to a tiny number of lucky/rich people is very, very harmful to the most disadvantaged children in society.

I think moving hundreds of thousands of very bright and motivated children and their bright, motivated (and usually very well off parents) into state schools, so that they can become part of the school community would be hugely beneficial to the rest of the children. Because schools are communities, and they rise and fall on the input of the parents and children just as much as they do as a result of the efforts put in by teachers and heads.

Incidentally I would pay for the expansion of state schools by introducing a mansion tax, which would raise 1.6 billion pounds. The rest would come from a rise on the top rate of tax. (by the way, my family are higher rate tax payers, and we wouldn't have a problem with this).

"In any case I actually don't think that private schools are better than state schools in all cases."

No, but they do cream off a lot of the brightest children, which is not good for those left behind is it?

People who have been to private schools do hold a disproportionate amount of power. The entire ministerial team in the Department for Education, for example, are privately educated. While I don't think that necessarily you have to have experienced something to understand it, I do think that having such a narrow band of experience in charge of education
policy can't be right.

"AuntieStella it doesn't go by categories. When it comes to private schools, removing fee paying schools in the UK which cater to certain sections of the population from charitable status would not prevent all charitable work in the field of education ever."

I thought it would, in the way the current law is framed (and in the light of the recent tribunal outcome). For they are providing education ie fulfilling a charitable aim. So either you draft a law which removes education as a charitable aim (catching all, the charities where it is not sole aim could (I think) still carry out educational projects, but would have to fund from non-charitable sources) or you hand over currently charitable assets to private hands if any charity fails to meet its aims (which would be charter for abuse) or charities which are not deemed to be meeting aims would wound up in accordance with current rules (under which charitable assets can only go to other charities).

Is there a draft new law on some other concept (for there may well be possibilities I'd have missed)? I'd be interested to see how they deal with the detail.