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?

Or alternately they could do what many parents of children at state schools do: support their child's learning and support their local school to improve.

All the children in my extended family who are motivated to learn and whose parents are highly motivated to support them have done outstandingly well in non-selective state schools: we're talking 10 A*s at GCSE, playing sport at county level, achieving highly in music. Some are at state schools considered good, but two are at a very mediocre school where there are considerable behavioural problems. They've still managed to do outstandingly well.

I appreciate that not all parents want to take such an active role in their children's education as my relatives have done. And some children, like mine unfortunately, haven't got much of a work ethic, and may benefit the extra pushing and spoon feeding they get at private school.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that parents who want to go private often justify it on the basis that their children would sink like stones in a state school, despite being clever, highly motivated and having amazing support at home. Actually I think that it's not very common for this to happen, even at schools which are a bit rubbish.

I might be on the other side of the argument from Hakluyt and TOSN in this matter but boy do I cringe when other parents who use fee-paying schools cry "you're just jealous" or "you're too poor to afford private".

Are people incapable of reasoning that others can hold different opinions from them without it being down to jealousy? Embarrassing.

Completely agree, Hmmm! How to lose the argument before it even starts. I also cringe at the sight of 'sacrifice'. Making a sacrifice for your child's sake is donating a kidney for them or going into the water to rescue them as they're swept out to sea. It's not going without holidays abroad or a new car so you can pay school fees.

I too cringe at those comments about people being Jealous or too poor. Some people just don't support the idea of selective education whether it be by gonads, god, ability or finances. I am happy to listen to people who have reasoned arguments against selective education. I actually find TOSNs posts on the whole very good as I get the impression that she is against selective educations for well considered reasons and that she wouldn't use fee paying selective education for her own children even if offered the chance for free (apologies if I have got that wrong TOSN, but it is the impression I get from your posts).
I agree with TOSN that abolishing all selection would equal things up a bit (although I'm not sure how we can realistically equal out catchment areas to ensure a greater equality). However, whilst we have selection we don't have equality and some private schools do offer something different to some state schools and vice versa and whilst I have the choice I will choose the best of what is available.
I'm sure the vast majority of parents do choose what they feel is best and most suitable for their children from the available options. I initially chose a state school and I do feel quite saddened that my son didn't thrive in that school but I couldn't cope with him crying every single day at school and I therefore explored other options. I don't feel that I should be made to feel guilty or like a terrible person for doing that because I am sure that most parents wouldn't want to see their child crying and upset every single day. My choice wasn't based on wanting a superior academic education and neither was it based on wanting to keep my son away from 'undesirable' children, my decision was just based on not wanting my child to be upset and sick with worry everyday. I know that not everyone will be able to do what I have done if faced with similar circumstances but I don't think that I should be forced to keep my child somewhere that he wasn't happy just because others don't have the same options to move elsewhere.
FWIW: if there had been no private schools and no other available state school I would have turned to home education because I would not be prepared to see my child dreadfully upset everyday for several years of his life.

Miss, I took my dd out of a state school because she wasn't thriving.

I put her on a number of waiting lists and soon enough she got a place at another state school. Lots of children in the state sector move schools for one reason or another. Usually it works out ok.

I'm sure that it does work out okay for many, but we contacted several local schools and they all had a waiting list and said there is such little movement that it would be unlikely any places would become available for at least a couple of years. I spoke to the teacher and headteacher at the school my son was at and they told me that my son needed to stop getting upset when a couple of other kids said hurtful things or jabbed him with pencils etc and that my son was making himself a target by getting upset when he was bullied. They advised me to teach my son to ignore the bullies because they would get bored and stop doing what they were doing. They told me that my son was making himself a target. I wasn't prepared to leave my son in that situation for, potentially, a couple of years whilst waiting for a space at another state school.
I was considering home education but then we were fortunate enough to get an offer of a hefty bursary at a private school (which doesn't have charitable status) and I took it.

Do I think it is fair that other children might not have the same option? No, I don't think it is fair.
Should I have stayed and fought the school and written to the governors etc? Yes, I probably should as that might have changed things for other children as well, but I was more concerned with my own child's mental and emotional well being. Perhaps I was selfish at that time, but I can live with that because ultimately my own child's well being is my main concern.

It didn't work out for us either - I will have to pay to get my DS an education. I can barely afford it but the State system really does not work for everybody and whilst I have fought and fought for help we simply don't "tick the boxes". So thank God for private schools.

Thanks miss and yes you're right - I wouldn't ever send my children to private school, in which I don't think I'm alone on MN, though possible in a minority!

I'm not sure that you are in a minority TOSN. I think MN might have a biased opinion on private school threads because some of us that use private schools feel we have to defend our decision. I'm not saying everyone who uses private schools feels that way but I know that I do.
I have family members who call me a snob for sending one of my children to private school. They talk behind my back and say that I think I am better than them, which categorically isn't true.
I just think MN views are a bit skewed and there are actually lots of people who would never use private schools.

I think the resentment springs from the sense I often get from people whose dc's are at private school is that somehow their offspring are too special/intelligent/talented for state school, but if you asked them the question - 'am I letting my own child down by sending them to state school' they'd fall over themselves to insist that you weren't. This idea that even good state schools which turn out happy children with great qualifications - well it's just not good enough for THEIR children. To the point of leaving the country/home schooling in preference to sending their children there. It's actually really bloody insulting. I totally understand people's dilemma if they have just one choice of a truly terrible state school - but most people aren't in this position. Most state schools are perfectly decent places full of dedicated teachers and nice kids.

Definitely not in a minority in RL; I know lots of people much more direct than me about how they feel on this issue in fact! But MN is a bit different, isn't it!?

It is very different. I think part of the reason that it is so different is that it is hard to defend your decisions in RL without taking the judgements to heart and potentially ruining friendships and family relationships.
I am definitely the black sheep of the family because I have a child at private school (only one of my children), also because I bought a house instead of renting and because I have a car (apparently I think I'm too good to catch the bus). If people on MN judge me for those things it is much easier to live with than when my family judge me. It's all quite laughable really because me and DH probably have the lowest household income of everyone in our families from our generation.

To add: I do use public transport, just not when I am with disabled DS because public transport is difficult with a disabled child and disability related essential equipment.

I think miss it's about our feelings and hopes for our children - that there are many people out there who truly believe that their child is too clever/unique/sensitive/special for state school. All the people I know who have their children at private schools think this way.

On the other hand, I don't know anyone in RL who would judge you for that.

But in RL, a friend and I have both had recent dealings with a private school in town whose posters show a fresh faced white girl with the slogan 'I am a X [school name] girl'. I usually keep my rants to myself in RL but she surprised me by saying, almost as though she wouldn't be called poor or jealous or anything 'oh wasn't that sign disgusting? Just that whole private school entitlement arrogance, isn't it?'? I was taken aback and refreshed at the same time...

I am a parent who educates their children privately. It's nothing to do with them being sensitive, special etc. it's because I didn't like what I saw in the state sector and the way it was run. I am state educated myself and very uninspiring it was too.

And yet manages to turn out massive numbers of very capable, brilliant, well qualified people.

Go figure.

Mini: In RL I don't know anyone who has chosen private because they think their child is too clever/special/unique/sensitive. I have heard people on MN say things along those lines but not in RL.
The people I know at my sons private school have chosen it for one or more of the following reasons:
Logistically it is the easiest option for some.
They have moved from state schools at KS2 when classes merge and become 40+ in size.
They have moved from state for other reasons (like me)
They are lazy and like the fact that lots of things can be arranged by the schol which they would have to arrange themselves at the local state school (lamda, piano, ballet, judo etc). I know some state schools offer those things but not the ones in my area and some parents like the fact that their child can do these things at end of the school day and not need running around at other times.
Some like having smaller classes.
Some didn't get offered any state school within a couple of miles so opted for the private which many walk to each day.
They don't agree with things like SATs and constant curriculum changes and have therefore opted for a school which doesn't have to comply with those things.

I don't think most believe that their child is too clever for state school because more than half of the junior aged children have tutors which I don't think the parents would feel necessary if they genuinely believed that their children were very clever.
There is a wide variety of reasons people use the private school my son goes to and there might be some that think their child is unique/ special etc but it isn't the reason of the majority.

Other reasons I know of:

They started at the private school nursery and it was their most local option and then got nervous about moving child away from their friends.
The children wanted to be (are) choristers - you can't do that anywhere else.
The children were failed in the state sector with their dyslexia/dyspraxia or HFA and the local private school is known as having a specialism in these areas.
The children were badly bullied in their state school (some did, some didn't try more than one school).
Their children are not very academic at all and the private school has bottom sets of ~8 children.
They work in the state system (as do I) and do not rate their own schools.
They disagree with modern methods of teaching and/or believe their children would suit more traditional methods and/or curriculum.

The last one was meant to say especially for their autistic/Asperger's children (though, thank God, I believe the state sector - or Ofsted - is starting to move back away from all these colourful, manic, busy, noisy classrooms as being the one and only way to deliver an education as they are terrible for most children on the spectrum).

It hardly matters WHY someone should privately educate their child. The thread is about removing the charitable status of the school, and getting them to pony up the dough and stop leeching off the taxpayer.

Oh and this is an example of the kind of thing I've had said to me in rl:

"I disagree vehemently with private schooling but I have to admit, the SENCO at your ds's school is the best in the county" (from someone in the know).

"I disagree strongly with private education but not as much as with selective (meaning grammar) schools" (which we have in our county).

"I would never send my child to a private school even if kids got stabbed daily at my kids' school. I would still send them in, I feel that strongly about supporting state education," ( yes, a friend's husband actually said that to me).

And "your ds's school looks/sounds really lovely. I wish we could afford it. I'm glad he's happy there."

So I believe people are happy to voice their varied opinions.

Yes, Echt, but the thread moved on to discussing that. And also discussed why legally charitable status cannot be removed. And that it might cost (lose) the taxpayer £200 per child but at the same tine it is saving the taxpayer £5k - £10k per child being educated elsewhere...