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?

Independent schools don't pay corporation tax , however they do pay VAT , other businesses can claim back their VAT so it is not true to say that they don't pay tax.

Some disadvantaged children make it to private schools on burseries as a result of amazing and dedicated teachers. My BF's primary teacher realised her potential, contacted her father (unemployed and struggling single parent), got the forms, filled them in, gave her extra lessons and took her to the exam.

My BF was awarded a full scholarship to a top public school and went on to Oxford. No way she could have achieved so much without that help.

I totally agree with you OP.

The fees would only increase by about £200 per pupil per year, so would not price people out.

School fees are VAT exempt (and it's an EU wide ruling), and it is the same exemption that applies to university fees. Not one to be unpicked.

If a school could just relinquish its charitable status, there would be an absolute stampede to do it. At present, the only way to do this is by winding up the charity (selling all land, buildings and major assets in line with the rules that govern all charities, and then donating the proceeds to a charity with similar aims). Schools understandably do not want to close.

And of course, the state sector cannot afford the necessary expansion to cover shortfall of places as the charities closed.

And if we have to prioritise, whose needs are greater?

Neither. Each child's needs are equal.
I have a child with a severe learning disability. He benefits from IEPs and 1:1 support. Schools can already (and do) apply for funding to support children with specific learning needs. However, schools don't always provide the same support for children at the other end of the scale. I don't think these children should be sat bored and not learning whilst any extra funds are diverted to lower achieving children who can already benefit from IEPs and SEN guidance. I think any additional funding should be allocated to ensure that each child can learn at a pace appropriate to themselves in the classroom. I find your idea that children are clever and capable of self learning due to schools inaccurate. Lots if children who are very clever learn a lot at home. These types of children are constantly questioning and seeking advice. They often have parents who are willing to give up time and money to support learning. The Home environment doesn't negate the need for schools to provide appropriately to ensure that children keep progressing and keep motivated in the classroom.
Parental involvement in education doesn't eradicate schools responsibilities.

I am confident that independent schools would find (legal) ways of minimising their taxable "surpluses". Capital allowances? A bit of R&D?

Yes school fees are exempt that means that schools have to pay VAT on everything they buy including buildings and capital improvements .

Yanbu they are businesses so they should be paying tax in full. Having a few lower middle class kids attend doesn't make them charities..
I don't agree with private schools at all but if we must have them then they should be treated as the businesses that they are?

The independent schools council estimate fee increase of about £200 per pupil per year. This would no way cause a crisis that would end up with schools closing and huge hoards of kids hitting the state sector and teachers unemployed.

So it is really just a nice tax break that should be stopped.

One positive consequence is that schools would be free to make a profit, which could even reduce school fees. I remember my school having to sell off a profitable business they had inadvertently built (on the back of hiring out our school buses!) because it was putting the charitable status at risk by being a business.

I think having an influx of well mannered children who have parents interested in their education and the resources to fund trips and equipment wouldn't be too hard for teachers.

So, you think the ex-private school parents should/would be funding equipment and trips for the state school? Really?

Miss - my Ds2 has a diagnosis of ASD and is on school action plus.

What this means is that he has a one hour group session to work on his communication skills once a week with a TA with minimal training. He gets no allocated support in the classroom.

I have another child who is at the other end of the scale. He is very able and is sometimes/often bored in class.

If I had access to more funding for learning support it would without a doubt go to my disabled child as my non-disabled child will succeed without it (though admittedly is less likely to succeed at a very high level).

There are many, many children with SN at my children's school who are not statemented and get little trained learning support. There are many more non-SN, really impoverished children who are just very very behind because of a lack of input from home. I think it would be hideously selfish and elitist of me to try to make a case that my clever and able Ds who is achieving at a high level is equally deserving of scarce resources than some of these children who will leave primary barely able to read and write. Clever and well supported children achieve highly in educational establishments where all they have are a classroom, a good teacher and some dog-eared textbooks. Learning disabled and culturally impoverished children do badly in all settings when they're not getting the support they need.

100K could be given to the 100 most deprived schools in the country to provide

*free music tution
*high level sports training
*intensive individual tutoring and mentoring for failing students.
*family learning - many of the children in these schools come from families where nobody has any qualifications

An NQT outside London earns 22k per year, add on to that national insurance and pension contribution and the cost to the school is 27k.

One music teacher could teach 16 pupils a day for a half hour lesson = only 80 pupils per week.

One extra PE teacher could provide one or two extra lessons a week to an average-sized school - and maybe some clubs or matches

Intensive tutoring, again like the music teacher , would only reach 80 pupils.

And there you have used up almost all of your 100k before you have bought any supplies or done any recruitment, advertising, DBS checks, timetabling, what have you.

Just pointing out how well so many schools (both state and independent) do with their limited resources.

Someone with legal knowledge will be along soon.... but as I understand it although £200 per child is not too much extra there are other knock on effects of taking away charitable status e.g. the buildings are part of it and would therefore have to be sold. It is not just a matter of stopping the tax relief.
Many schools are not businesses in the normal sense of the word as their profits are ploughed back into the schools.

I could equally argue that your ds2 with ASD is more privileged than my ds who has ASD and severe ld and attends a special school. He is unlikely to ever speak, let alone read and write. So based on your theory your ds2 is more able than mine and can probably wipe his own arse and therefore shouldn't get any extra funding.
Top trumps and flawed thinking.

Owl, you are right. Many well off parents are as tight as a gnats chuff when it comes to children other than their own. Their preference is to use their money to enable little Jack or Tabitha to, educationally speaking, climb trample over equally able but less privileged children, not to spend their cash propping up the state sector,

This is the community page of a local private school.

They pay their taxes which props up the state sector which they do not use themselves.

Their preference is to use their money to enable little Jack or Tabitha to, educationally speaking, climb trample over equally able but less privileged children, not to spend their cash propping up the state sector,

They are already propping up the state sector by paying taxes. More tax than most probably. Should they also be expected to pay extra on top for a state education to make up for the cant-be-arsed parents?

Miss - educational funding should be targeted at those who need it most. If there were many children like your Ds who had a terrible quality of life from a lack of funding of their education, I would gladly hand over the, oh, £100 a year that goes towards funding ds2's communication classes with the TA.

(and I only call them "cant be arsed parents" because you think it OK to insult a whole swathe of parents)

They pay their taxes which props up the state sector which they do not use themselves

Their taxes also fund public services that they do use.

You don't only pay for services that you use so why should some people benefit via charitable status and others not.

Miss - educational funding should be targeted at those who need it most.

They all need different things regardless of ability, that's the bit you seem to not understand. My very clever and high achieving ds2 needs appropriate support as much as my ASD and ld ds1.

This is a pointless "discussion" anyway since one side will try to justify it and one side will try to insult the other and never the twain shall meet. It's been done approximately 19,234,987 times before on MN and always ends up the same.

You don't only pay for services that you use so why should some people benefit via charitable status and others

Everyone benefits because the education budget only needs to spend £200 pet child for 7% of the population leaving more m

Yes owl - they should be propping up the state sector. And the CHILDREN of those parents who 'can't be arsed'. Because they are CHILDREN and they are in that situation through no fault of their own.

Nobody wants to rob the rich of their handbags that cost as much as cars, their holiday houses, their laboutins, holidays abroad etc. I'm sure the wealthy would still have an AMAZING quality of life even if they paid more tax towards improving the life chances of some of the unluckiest children in the country.