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?

Bright children with supportive parents have two quite important things going for them. Is it really 'reverse snobbery' to suggest they might not be at the very top of the list of children we should be worrying about? And is it really so controversial to suggest that institutions interested in taking them on (and benefitting, in turn, from their brightness) are not, in any sense most would realise, charitable?

I mean, I'm generally friendly to charity bag packers, but the day one of them is collecting for Local Private School's Funds is the day I'll change supermarkets.... To one that sells edible hats.

Bright children with supportive parents have two quite important things going for them. Is it really 'reverse snobbery' to suggest they might not be at the very top of the list of children we should be worrying about?

I don't think most of the children with unsupportive parents or adverse home lives are generally forgotten about. I'm not including children who are "less bright" because I don't think a lack of academic ability and unsupportive parenting are always linked (plenty of less able children have supportive parents).
Have you any idea how much money is spent on helping children from adverse home lives? These are not just children from state schools as children from private schools also access support from health services etc to cope with the difficulties they experience from problems at home. But if we look solely at the amount of money spent on so called "problem families" it is huge. Social care and support services spend huge sums working with problem families. CAMHS spend hugs sums helping children cope when their home lives affect their mental health. The education budget spends a disproportionate amount of money on children who have difficulties related to their home lives.
These children from the most unsupportive and sometimes just not bothered families are not forgotten by the education system. How much money is spent on taxis alone each year ferrying these children to and from school? How much is spent on 1:1 or small group support for these children?
I don't mind public money being spent on any of those things and I do accept that many children slip through the net and don't access the extra support that they need, but I don't think we can really consider the least supported children to be a forgotten minority because often they do get flagged up and given extra support or different provision.

" The education budget spends a disproportionate amount of money on children who have difficulties related to their home lives."

Disproportionate? Why disproportionate?

Disproportionate as in per child. More is spent on the education of children who need extra support or need to travel further to specialist schools.
I have nothing against the disproportionate spend. My own son who has different educational provision costs in excess of £20k per year to educate, but it is a disproportionate amount compared to other children.
1:1 support is expensive
Taxis to school are expensive
MH support is expensive (some schools buy in extra MH support for some children)

A place at a PRU costs between £12k and £18k per year plus quite often daily taxis to and from the PRU.
A lot (not all) of children in PRUs will come from unsupportive households with adverse circumstances.
Would you not consider that disproportionate in comparison to average spend per pupil?
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/180581/DFE-00035-2012.pdf

Steaming nit in response to your post
"And is it really so controversial to suggest that institutions interested in taking them on (and benefitting, in turn, from their brightness) are not, in any sense most would realise, charitable?"

It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community.

It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community.

It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community.

It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community.

It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community.

It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community.

It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community.

As usual you have chosen to use one point to defend your argument when it has been stated so many times why SOME private school's get charitable status and if they 'only' provided bursaries they would not get charitable status.

But you know that anyway, you just choose to ignore it.

Basically you are not just saying wouldn't support charity for bright kids you are actively against it. Hence my post. You then turn it round and mock me with you post about "oh poor bright children with supportive parents" completely missing the point. Before mocking my posts or spelling perhaps you could take time to understand my POV.

You seem actively against children from poorer backgrounds receiving free private schooling. This makes no sense.

If you think more money should be spent on children who are struggling for what ever reason then I wouldn't disagree but to fund the struggling children you don't need to take it from those poorer children benefiting from a private school funding.

It shouldn't be a zero sum game.
Just because one group are not getting enough support does not negate the need for the brighter/poorer kids needs to be met.

Sorry that should read
you are not just saying you wouldn't

"It is not just giving free places to poorer children that get's them charitable status. It is the fact that they do multiple things for the whole community." I would really like some concrete examples of what private schools do for the whe community. I had a hunt yesterday- but I couldn't find any details- just general statements. And the only involvement I have any personal knowledge of is of the sponsorship of an academy, which went very wrong indeed because the private school had no idea at all of the issues it had to deal with. Could someone give me. a link to a costed example please?

Hakylut

It's hardly worth repeating myself to how private school's help the community as some people on this thread refuse to believe anything that is written or choose to forget what other posters have already written further up the thread.

I have even given some examples that my DS's school do to help the community and their school is not even a charitable school.

Here are just some of the things off the top of my head mentioned in this thread for those that missed them. Although I am sure I will be told this should still not qualify them for charitable status.

Facilities are loaned free of charge
Parents take time out to read with state school pupils thus increasing the ratio of 1:1 time at state schools.
Pupils have mentored younger pupils from state school
Teachers have taught for free in local schools
££££ have been raised for local community projects and other less fortunate children through fund raising within the school.
Bursaries have been given to children that would otherwise not fulfill their potential.
Running literacy schemes free of charge to pupils from local state schools
Helping to train teachers at no cost

I know that a private boys school near us sends teachers to a state school nearby to teach children A Level science subjects they weren't going to be able to offer otherwise as they didn't have the staff. I think that counts as helping the local community but not sure how much it happens across the country,

Thank you. It. Sounds as if your school is doing loads.

However, as there is no oversight from the charities commission, and the level of public benefit activity is decided by the individual school, you will see why I am a little sceptical about your assertion that all private schools spend the money they save from tax breaks on community activity. Particularly as I couldn't actually find any details- I did as much research as I could on one particular school near me, for example, and couldn't find any details at all. And I have never heard of them doing any community activity. I have heard anecdotally of private schools which have offered A level Latin lessons as their sole public benefit activity.

Hakylut

Why don't you email them and ask them? You may be surprised.
Are they a charitable school?

You can copy the point as many times as entertains you, and I'm sure you know of a school which does this.

I, on the other hand, don't know any private school which does anything for the whole community.

And yes I am against poorer bright children being taken off to private school, you're right.

What do you mean "are they a charitable school?" Thy have charitable status- like all private schools. They are not a charitable foundation.

You are so sure that all private schools do loads for their community-why are you so sure?

Not all private schools are set up as charitable school and therefore not all schools receive tax exemptions.

That's why I asked if they are a charitable school.

TOSN

Please could you name a school which receives Tax exemptions due to being set up as a charity that doesn't do anything for the community?

Barbiella- why won't you just link to the details that you're basing your assertions on?

sparechange Thu 17-Jul-14 15:06:55
mini
These music lessons and sports training and mentoring that you wish could be provided to disadvantaged schools...
Do you realise that private schools are already providing it in order to keep their charitable status?

Not to pick on this school for being anything other than the closest private school to me, but I wonder if you will concede the are earning their tax break?

www.jags.org.uk/community/community/

I don't know how many private schools do similar things, but I would be fairly sure that more than 100 schools benefit overall.

I, on the other hand, don't know any private school which does anything for the whole community.

I can't think of any charity which does things for the whole community. All of the charities that I can think of do things for their specific target groups.

This was posted on this thread!

I have written in detail what my son's school do.

sparechange linked in a school which has info available for the community projects they do.

Another poster posted something about Dulwich college.

You basically want me to prove the point by linking even more schools community work.
If you are so sure that private schools WITH charity status and tax exemptions don't do anything for the community then please prove it.

www.charitycommission.gov.uk/detailed-guidance/specialist-guidance/schools,-colleges-and-universities/charities-and-charity-trustees-an-introduction-for-school-governors/#2

This is interesting as schools other than independent also have charitable status. Voluntary aided schools as well as academies have charitable status.

Voluntary aided are all the religious schools, I believe.

Wonder about free schools (or are they the same as academies)?

Dulwich college was involved in the disastrous sponsorship of an academy. One of the reasons I am cynical about this is that I was involved in that fiasco.

And I would just like to see some figures. It is very easy to say that you open your swimming pool to local schools- it is also very easy to do this not very often and under very strict conditions.

What do you mean "are they a charitable school?" Thy have charitable status- like all private schools. They are not a charitable foundation.

Not all private schools have charitable status. 12% do not have charitable status, however! many of those without charitable status still do things for the community or other charities.
One of my sons attends a private school which doesn't have charitable status. It is only a small school and has limited funds.
I'm not sure of everything that it does but I am aware of the following:
Over the last two years the children and families have raised thousands of pounds for nominated charities (charities that no one would argue should be charities).
They offer assistance with fees to some children (my own included).
They do a collection of new toys at Christmas and Easter eggs at Easter and give them to charities which provide for children in need of these things.
They sponsor the local carnival and provide funds which enable it to go ahead because the council has removed all of the funding.
They don't have better facilities than the other local schools so they cannot lend out their grounds etc.

Maybe if they had charitable status they would use the tax savings to do more than they currently can.