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?

Define M/c? two parents working for a living? All the people i know who have kids at public school are working middle class. They forgo all luxuries, and scrimp and save to send their kids to the best schools they can.

Not a single one paying the top rate of tax. Not one.

littlewhite bag - easy more money than the OP.

Scrimp and save away but don't expect the tax payer to help you.

I have 3 kids.Being able to afford £45k a year in fees would never in a million years make me worthy of our school having charitable status.Just why?

If you earn over 60k you earn more than 95% of the population. That is rich.

According to the law at present, they are charities. Education is a sufficient charitable purpose.

Remember many which are charities are ancient. The price hikes (especially early 00s when NI changed) are recent, and current (un)affordability may be a blip. And charities are allowed to charge fees. This all went through an extensive tribunal a few years ago.

Now, it might cost £200 per pupil pa in the tax break. But set that against the cost, if these charities closed in accordance with current law, of providing places costing between £3k per pupil per year (lowest typical primary) to £9k (most expensive typical secondary - figures from BBC quoting Government report in 2011) and it's clear this will be an expensive change. And that's not allowing for purchase costs of land/buildings/equipment to meet increased demand for state schools as charitable ones have to close.

Charitable status is better for everyone than private schools being run for profit.

If you earn over 60k you earn more than 95% of the population. That is rich.

Not rich here then
We have total household income of less than £35k but have been paying prep fees of £7k for ds2 since we realised he was bored, unmotivated and because of various other logistical and practical issues. I know we are not rich and I know we can't afford senior school private fees but we will probably transfer to state at senior level because he will be able to get himself to school and streaming comes into play which will remove the boredom aspect.
I can look forward to my loboutins and handbags that cost as much as a car in a few years time

Charitable status is better for everyone than private schools being run for profit why? If you want something different, and you're ready to pay for it, and you like the fact that it's not under the aegis of the state... Why is it better that it's not properly subject to market forces and running purely for the benefit of its customers? I would have thought that would be quite appealing for many customers - they're accountable to you and nobody else and will run in the best way to be profitable as a business. Why do market forces appeal so far and no further on this?

Nit, whilst everything you say is valid, in practice schools run for profit focus on making profits which means underpaying staff, feeding children poor quality lunches, ripping off parents on uniform, very poor quality equipment, no bursaries or scholarships, no accountability apart from financially, and no requirement to engage with the local community whatsoever, therefore creating a generally unpleasant, moneygrabbing atmosphere that to most of us doesn't match the definition of a school, a place of education.

We earn 60k and have 3 dc. There is absolutely no way on earth we could even contemplate sending one of them to private school. I don't believe in it in any case so am happy with state school system.

But you don't need bursaries or scholarships at a state school!

Your description of the atmosphere at state schools isn't one I recognise, I'm afraid.

but you don't need bursaries or scholarships at a state school!

That is very true but the grammar school system isn't so dissimilar from a scholarship system. The grammar schools cream off the very brightest (or most tutored children) and provide them with a place which isn't accessible to everyone. Private schools offer scholarships to a few very bright (or heavily tutored) individuals.
Grammar schools are state schools which are only accessible to a minority of fortunate individuals.
If we are going to campaign to scrap charitable status being afforded to independent schools then I think we also need to campaign to scrap the grammar school system and also faith schools which select based on religion. After all, public money is propping up all of these selective schools to some extent.

"If we are going to campaign to scrap charitable status being afforded to independent schools then I think we also need to campaign to scrap the grammar school system and also faith schools which select based on religion."

They are two separate issues. But I suspect that most people who want to get rid of charitable status for private schools would be happy to see the back of faith and grammar schools as well............

I'm with you miss!

I would abolish 'charitable status' itself. Effectively it takes money from other tax payers that they could have spent on anything they thought appropriate - including actual charities.

Without it many lawyers would have to find proper jobs to feed their families, but I can live with that. It doesn't create extra money, but just moves it around in circles while using quite a lot of it for administration and those pesky lawyers.

Hi nit, I did not describe any state school. Apologies for confusion.

Miss unreasonable - streaming and setting has not been shown to improve outcomes for bright children except in maths.

BackOnly, do you mean "pesky accountants"?

It's not just about outcomes though (streaming and setting), it's about a child being able to interact with peers of a similar ability and not feel he had to dumb himself down to fit in. It's about the whole class being able to work at a similar pace. Funnily enough though my sons main strong subject is maths so setting for that would suit him nicely.

They are two separate issues. But I suspect that most people who want to get rid of charitable status for private schools would be happy to see the back of faith and grammar schools as well............

I agree that they would, but the OP only discussed private schools and didn't mention the fact that the other selective schools her son cannot access (a grammar and a faith school where his peers will be going) are also benefiting from public money. It seemed like an attack on private schools alone rather than a more balanced debate about the lack of universal access to all schools benefiting from public money, especially as the public cost is significantly more for grammar and faith schools than it is for private schools.

"It's not just about outcomes though (streaming and setting), it's about a child being able to interact with peers of a similar ability and not feel he had to dumb himself down to fit in. It's about the whole class being able to work at a similar pace. "

Why does the whole class have to work at a similar pace? And why does a child's need to interact with peers of a similar ability require private education? Are rich children specially clever?

I didn't say that a child who is clever needs private school. I haven't said that anywhere. I was talking about state senior school which is where my son will be going. Do not invent things into my posts.

Removing charitable status would mean increasing fees a little bit. Most fee payers could afford this.

Some schools might reduce bursaries but most would still offer them as a way of impotibg pupils who will boost their league table rating.

Given all the other cuts the government is making this one actually makes sense.

YABU

My dd1 has a bursary, we are considered a 'disadvantaged' family. I think it is important that private schools retain their charitable status.

"Removing charitable status would mean increasing fees a little bit. Most fee payers could afford this."

Under current law, this cannot happen. The charity would have to close.