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?

shockingkybadteacher

If it could be well defined in a new law that, in effect, privatised certain charities, that might be the best outcome.

Do you know if anyone is actually campaigning for that? I doubt any schools would do so, as it would look like the grabbiest move possible. Who else might be interested enough to get it on to a Party's educational policy?

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.

But you are assuming that private schools have a higher proportion of bright and motivated children. I believe that grammar schools have a higher proportion of bright and motivated children than private schools. I also believe that the value added for grammar schools is often quite poor in comparison with comprehensives in non grammar areas.
The entrance exams for grammar schools in my area are much more difficult to pass then the entrance exams for the private schools. Most of the children in the grammar schools also have motivated parents and often quite wealthy parents (they have to be to afford the vast amounts of tutoring and houses in the catchment areas).
I do agree that scrapping all selection would achieve a greater mix in schools but I don't think that parents or children will become more motivated just by having an influx of motivated parents from other schools. The schools overall results might increase but not necessarily the overall achievement of each individual child.

Miss - now you've raised the issue of grammar schools, I'd abolish those too!

"The schools overall results might increase but not necessarily the overall achievement of each individual child."

There is evidence that less able children taught in mixed ability classes do better than less able children who are grouped by ability. I don't think it's unreasonable to extrapolate these results to a whole school.

My own learning experience has taught me that sharing a classroom with people who are as/more intelligent, and as/more ambitious and enterprising than me is more satisfying and results in better results.

I raised the issue of grammar schools very early in the thread.....

There is evidence that less able children taught in mixed ability classes do better than less able children who are grouped by ability. I don't think it's unreasonable to extrapolate these results to a whole school.

I'm sure somebody posted upthread that the top ability group do better when in streamed ability groups. If that is the case then why should the top ability group be held back for the sake of lower achieving children benefitting. Surely we should be wanting every child to be able to do their actual best. It shouldn't be about 'balancing out achievement' but it should be about making sure every child achieves the most that they possible can without unfairly impacting on others. Hence my SLD child is in a specialist school because he would have an unfair impact on the other children in class. Or should I be arguing that he should be put into a mainstream mixed ability class regardless of how detrimental that might be to others in the class?

High achieving children do marginally less well being taught in mixed ability groups.

And why should we organise education in such a way as to disadvantage the majority given that high ability children who are well supported still do extremely well and Hoover up a massively disproportionate amount of life's prizes in terms of money, jobs, health and housing, when they move on into adulthood?

Obviously some children with special needs simply can't be accommodated in mainstream classrooms, but the vast majority of NT children - high and low ability - can.

At the moment the way education in the uk is organised, the separation of the wealthy and the able, and those able to play the system, in my opinion, disadvantages everyone else, especially the most disadvantaged. This is not good for society or for children.

OP, I disagree. First of all, the so called disadvantaged children private schools refer to are not only capable but also usually those, who ordinarily wouldn't be able to afford their fees and, therefore, are at a lesser advantage when compared to those whose parents can comfortably afford these fees. Secondly, parents of privately schooled children already pay their fair share of taxes for their children's place in state schools, which they will never use.

In a way, by giving the capable but less financially advantageous children an opportunity that they wouldn't otherwise have, private schools do take these children away from the state school if you could call it that. But for what? To give them a chance to make the most of themselves and to secure a better future by getting a better job later on in life? If this is what this "skimming off" results in, then we should all hope that more private schools give more of such chances to many more disadvantaged and capable!

Not all capable pupils leave state education in favour of scholarships or assisted place in private schools. In fact, from what I've seen in my son's school, the majority of capable kids' parents aim for them to secure a place at grammar schools, which aren't fee paying. Using the logic of the so called "skimming off", it's definitely more applicable to grammar schools than to the private ones, who only offer few assisted spaces to any students per year vs grammar schools, who would only admit the most capable.

Personally, I believe that the more opportunities our children have for a better life, the better it is for the country and, therefore, for all of us in the longer term. Remember that these children will get better jobs, earn more and contribute more to the economy as well as earn better lives for themselves.

Tigger - why is your clever child more deserving of financial largesse than someone else's average child who may be just as hardworking?

Why don't private schools offer help to children who struggle to meet even the average in large classes in state schools? Why do they only offer help to those who are already excelling?

Minifingers - in France, where mixed ability teaching is the only sort allowed until 15, it is well recognised that a huge proportion of the highest ability DC are utterly failed by the school system and certainly do not sweep up more of life's prizes.

Girls do better when taught without boys in the room and high-ability DC do better when streamed with similar DC. Is it wrong for parents of high-achieving girls to want then to be taught together?

Obviously some children with special needs simply can't be accommodated in mainstream classrooms, but the vast majority of NT children - high and low ability - can.

Many children without neurological disorders attend special schools as well as children who are not NT.
Almost 4% of children have a statement of SEN and 40% of those will attend a special school. Why is is that you state 'obviously some children with special needs cannot be accommodated in mainstream classrooms? I think a lot of the children with SN could attend mainstream schools but we live in a society where the social model of disability is quite prevalent and it holds disabled people back and prevents inclusion.
I go to my sons special school everyday and I can see that a few children wouldn't cope well in a mainstream classroom and for their own well being they are currently in the most appropriate provision. But quite a lot of the children could cope well in a mainstream classroom with the appropriate support. Some of them might even benefit from being amongst more able pupils. But they might impact on the learning of other children. The disabled children might also feel anxious and threatened in a mainstream school because sadly we live in a society where Some people have quite disablist attitudes.
If we really want to campaign for greater inclusion and a greater mix of ability in schools we need to look at both ends of the scale.
Personally I feel that parents should be able to exercise any choices that they have available to them either within state or private and mainstream or special schools.

Why don't private schools offer help to children who struggle to meet even the average in large classes in state schools? Why do they only offer help to those who are already excelling?

Because they rely largely on results and reputation to ensure that they have a sufficient number of children enrolling each year for the school to continue as a viable project.
Schools have been known to suggest that children paying full fees go elsewhere when it has become apparent that they might not get decent results. They are not just against lower ability poor kids, although they are not going to provide assistance for somebody who is going to affect their results when they wouldn't even want that kid in the school on full fees.
No all private schools are like that, but some are and we would be blinkered to not realise it.

Minifingers, it's not that any clever child is more deserving, which is the premise on which many, if not most, grammar schools operate at present but you must recognise that private schools don't have unlimited funds and these funds are being entirely provided by parents of kids, who already pay taxes for spaces in state schools not utilised by their children. How would it be fair to expect them to fund places for everyone just because state schools fail to achieve the outcomes we expect from them.

The thing is, Jayden was actually rather bright. "Jayden My Life" could have done with a few more commas, but it was an eloquent and expressive piece of writing. This is from a child who had very little formal learning because of a family situation which would horrify most of us.

He did want to learn. I felt ashamed of how little I could do for him because I felt if only I could have spent time, if I'd only had more hours than a few a week....

Tanique wasn't particularly bright in that way but she had a definite artistic ability. She was at the top or near the top of her class in art constantly and she used to draw to calm herself down.

Two talented children, one ended up in prison and one as an addict. If private schools are a charity why are they not helping such kids? The argument is that private schools are charities for clever kids. It's funny how those particular clever kids always seem to have a Mummy and Daddy who can't quite make all of the school fees, not a Mummy sectioned and a Daddy either not known or in the jail.

"but you must recognise that private schools don't have unlimited funds and these funds are being entirely provided by parents of kids, who already pay taxes for spaces in state schools not utilised by their children"

So why should they also get the tax breaks provided by charitable status, then??????

I am not entirly sure what you are saying because private schools save money the give taxes and dont take it by free schooling and food ect . I loved all my pribate schools (corect name Public School) and when my family fell on hard times i used all the knowlage i had to obtain a scholarship from Camford . I belive that raising the intelligently super away from the state is better (no skiving less swearing a better enviroment ect both of my children are or will have 'Private education'

Happy zapper, I don't know what sort of private school you went to, but skiving, swearing, drug taking and under age shagging was rife at mine. It's still considered a 'naice' school. Separating a wrong'un off from the chavs won't make them a nice child, only you can do that.

Tigger kid - where is your evidence that children at state schools who are clever and well supported do much worse than similar children at private schools?

???? I don't know what swearing has to do with it, I've said "fuck" at least seven times in the past few minutes alone. My refrigerator's broken and defrosted everything. I suspect having attended private school would not solve this issue

Minifingers I reckon happyzapper's ripping the piss, but defenders of private schools are being a bit disingenuous on this thread. One minute it's for clever kids, next it's not. One minute it's for naice kids, then did we say that out loud? One minute it's for children who behave well, except it isn't.

Private school is for well off people. That is it. That's the elephant in the room. If I said "I want to set up a charity for people earning loads of money" everyone would laugh, except when it's private school. Then it makes sense, of course.

Minifingers, when did I ever say that????????????????? :)

Well said shockinglybadteacher, op, YANBU, it is ridiculous that private schools have charity status.

Hakylut

So why should they also get the tax breaks provided by charitable status, then??????

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

The parents don't get tax breaks the SCHOOL does and it provides things for the local community in return.

Just thought I needed to make it clear because it doesn't seem to matter how many times it's said you still refer to the rich parents getting tax breaks when they don't.

So all private schools use all the money they save from the tax breaks on work in the local community then? That's fantastic- I didn't realize that. Could you link to the the Charity Commission audit pages which show the breakdown of the spending? I don't seem to be able to find them.

I'd also be interested in seeing the process the schools go through to determine what would be best for the local community- do they go through the LEA or the local council?