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?

"Thing is, whatever one thinks about private schools, they aren't charities. They just aren't, and I can't see how anyone could argue they are. So they shouldn't have charitable status."

The point, succinctly put. In case anyone missed it.

Only on MN will there be cries of; "I'm not rich, I can't afford private schools" yet be on wages that are double the national average.

Thing is, whatever one thinks about private schools, they aren't charities.

Unless, of course, they are and have been for over 500 years. But fuck it, let's get rid of the good along with the bad, eh? What do bright but poor children matter?

"What do bright but poor children matter?"

They matter a lot. How many of them go to private school?

My eldest two are at private. At their third school, the other two being state. I can't even go into the trouble we had at their last school. They're bright kids who were being treated like they were a hindrance and were being bullied for being different (as for the teachers and ht attitude to us).
So now they're at private with scholarships and bursaries, because we're on a bit over national average income with four children, and they're flying. I cannot describe the difference in them.
This thing about intelligent children will do well wherever is just rubbish really.
So selfishly I don't want private schools to lose their charitable status.
I don't mind if the rules about what they have to provide are tightened up though.

"I can't even go into the trouble we had at their last school. They're bright kids who were being treated like they were a hindrance and were being bullied for being different "

nobody is saying that crap state schools don't exist. Or that good private ones don't exist. All we are saying is that there is no justification at all for private schools to be charities.

YANBU. They are not charities whichever way you look at it. It's like saying if a lawyer takes on some pro-bono work s/he ought to get a tax deduction for it. That said, I don't think they are not entitled to some of the taxpayers money since undoubtedly their parents would be paying a large share themselves.

"Thing is, whatever one thinks about private schools, they aren't charities. They just aren't, and I can't see how anyone could argue they are. So they shouldn't have charitable status."

Many of them meet the required aims to enable them to be called charities. Whether we agree with that or not (I think they are businesses) it doesn't really matter. What matters is that they are currently deemed to be charities and scrapping that status would mean the buildings and other assets have to be sold meaning the schools have to close and the state have to provide a lot if extra places in our already bulging state schools. How would we afford it? How much more than the £100m would the govt need to provide?

I agree with you OP and even without reading the whole thread can guess responses - it'll be along the lines of "You're all bitter and twisted because my little Brainella really DESERVED her place and your thicko chav kids couldn't get a place" and "We're saving the state schools a huge burden - the burden of our massively intelligent children!"

I could be wrong, but charities supposed to do charitable things, innit. So I would like to offer the story of a child I helped out with for a bit. I was technically giving him support but what I was really doing was stopping him hurting anyone else in the class, which he would do when he got bored. He was very obviously both intelligent and frustrated - he had SEN, he'd been in and out of the care system and his mother had the kind of car-crash of a life that even Jeremy Kyle would shudder at. Don't ask about his dad.

He was unfocused, at times almost blinded with rage and painfully aware of his own shortcomings. I liked him a lot, I could see the really nice kid behind the aggro who was struggling. There were all the things in there, in himself, which could give him a different life but it was like he couldn't access them. In a small-class system with highly focused education, where he'd been given 1- to-1 help and support from teachers and encouraged to aim for the best, he would have gone places which weren't the jail. Guess where he was, last time I heard.

So why if private schools are so charitable and fantastic they don't take people like him? Why is Fettes, a charity, not saying "Hey, you can't cope with wee Jayden there because you have 30 other kids in the class, let us take him and we can do intensive care and therapy for him and help him reach his full potential?"

Because private schools are about as much a real charity as my arse is one of the eight wonders of the world.

I love you shockinglybadteacher :-)

My thoughts EXACTLY

I also sometimes wonder if boarding schools (which are - according to mumsnetters who send their children to one) deeply nurturing, caring environments, where children receive top-notch wrap-around care from a loving and stable staff who treat them like their own children, could take a good number of children who are currently in care, given that it would probably be cheaper than full-time state residential care. Also might turn out fewer children from care who leave education with no educational qualifications at all.

But then half the reason people put their children in private schools is so they don't have to mix with truly disadvantaged children (like the one you describe), so they might not feel this is a selling point.

Education is an inherently charitable purpose.

Charties are not obliged to help only the most needy. Indeed they get tax breaks not massive subsidies, where would the money to help the very severely disadvantaged come from? Schools would need different, specialist staff and resources for that.

YANBU. The OP is not talking about abolishing private schools, just removing their charitable status. They are not charities, they are businesses and should be taxed as such. It seems entirely reasonable to me.

I am in Scotland, where our education system is, by and large, simpler - we don't seem to have the same mix of free school/academy/grammar/C&E schools that I read about on MN & find bemusing. It is basically private or comprehensive. The vast, overwhelming majority of children are in the comprehensive system and do very well.

That's all very well but I took my DD out of state school so she wouldn't have the Jayden's of the world in her class any more. I won't deny it.

As a quiet well behaved girl in a class of 30 odd in state school she was overlooked and nowhere nearly reaching her potential.

I am not too proud to admit that my DH and I used money to remove her from this, put her into a school with small classes and less disruption in class and we have watched her fly.

I do wish that state schools could have smaller classes, more focused attention for those who need it and more specialist teachers but it is never going to happen.

I want the Jayden's to succeed and I strive for this in my work but until the government improves state schools, private schools are going to continue thriving.

Businesses make a profit, independent schools do not.

Any surplus is used for the benefit of the pupils in the school.

"Education is an inherently charitable purpose."

Why is that funny?

The children in independent schools are just children. Their parents might be wealthy but that doesn't make them as individuals any more or less deserving of education.

"That's all very well but I took my DD out of state school so she wouldn't have the Jayden's of the world in her class any more. I won't deny it"

Unlikely that Jayden would be in the top set. Where, presumably, your girl was if she went on to private school.

But then half the reason people put their children in private schools is so they don't have to mix with truly disadvantaged children (like the one you describe), so they might not feel this is a selling point.

That's pretty obvious isn't it! Most parents I know who send their children to private schools simply want their children to have the chance to learn with a decent child:teacher ratio in a calm environment conducive to learning. This does happen in a lot of state schools, but not all. Our local state school as had several incidents of children being violent towards teachers (in P1!) and no, I don't want my child to see that. We could move to a better catchment (which somehow is deemed acceptable on MM, where paying school fees is a heinous crime), but are very happy where we are so pay for our children to go private.

Any surplus is used for the benefit of the pupils in the school

So, the fee payers. And a couple on bursaries. How is that charitable?

teacher's point about Jayden is spot on: a charity shouldn't be directing its aims at the brightest kids who are, by happy coincidence, likely to boost the school's results! A charity cares about helping people who need help, not creaming off the clever kids.

Let them exist, if they can cut it as businesses. People like choice, they like, as littlewhitebag explained, to keep their children away from disadvantaged ones - distasteful, but ok. Just don't pretend that's in any way charitable.

And lottie: 'heir parents might be wealthy but that doesn't make them as individuals any more or less deserving of education* absolutely! Nobody said they didn't deserve an education: all children do!

YANBU. The OP is not talking about abolishing private schools, just removing their charitable status.

You have pissed a vital point that has been made many times: to remove charitable status the charity has to be wound up and all assets including buildings have to be sold or disposed of. There is no way around this. How can the schools continue if they have no buildings to operate from?

Fabsmum there are state boarding schools too and there are also independent charities which fund places at private boarding schools for children with adverse home lives. Perhaps the govt could consider providing more support to these charities so that a bigger number of children can have a boarding school education rather be in residential care but it would still leave the problem of where they live during the school holidays. Of course it would save money though as residential care is horrendously expensive. I'm not sure that most boarding schools whether state or private could cope with the children's emotional needs though and provide the pastoral help that they need.

hakluyt She was in primary when we moved her. She was in a mixed class so no sets.

Even in secondary they are not streamed until a few years in. If course she would have mixed with everyone. That is ridiculous.

DD2 went to state secondary up to S4 (Y11) and had a vast mix in all her classes even in the top sets. Disadvantaged children can be smart and achieve well too.

"The OP is not talking about abolishing private schools, just removing their charitable status. They are not charities, they are businesses and should be taxed as such. It seems entirely reasonable to me."

She is talking about closing a number of educational charities. For that is the only way to remove charitable status - to wind up the charity and donate all the assets (or proceeds of their sale) to a charity with similar aims.

Only those private schools which are businesses would remain.

Many charities are like businesses. They have to be to meet their aims efficiently. There'd be a hell of a lot of collateral damage to other charities if 'education' was no longer a charitable purpose.

And, selfishly, I don't want any more pressure on state schools.

So, the fee payers. And a couple on bursaries. How is that charitable?

NOT the fee payers we are talking about the benefit to their children

Of course they are not more deserving than other children but they are certainly not less!

These arguments don't stack up. If anything we should be increasing the charity tax/breaks giving subsidies so more children not of wealthy parents could benefit.

There is also a massive assumption here that only the bright go to independent schools. There are schools which take a massive range of ability. Not all independent schools are academically selective.

"Let them exist, if they can cut it as businesses. People like choice, they like, as littlewhitebag explained, to keep their children away from disadvantaged ones - distasteful, but ok. Just don't pretend that's in any way charitable."

Can I just ask if it's distasteful to move house to be in the catchment for a 'good' school or if it's just distasteful if you pay private school fees? For some reason it seems to be acceptable to do the former and I was just wondering why that is viewed differently?

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

I generally ignore these threads because i find them as ridiculous as the benefit bashing threads. But, crying laughing at this. At least you admit you are bitter. You are just as bad as the benefit bashers imo. DH and I pay enough personal tax I dont work for DH, nor do I need his support financially and corporation tax which helps prop up the public sector. DH also give in excess of £200K a year from his business to local schools supporting their breakfast clubs specifically aimed at impoverished kids. So what more would you like us to do Op?

I came from an impoverished childhood following my mother leaving a very abusive marriage. I left school with no qualifications but you know what. My mother taught us it didn't matter where you came from or what others had. Hard work is what mattered. Well I am proof those from such backgrounds can do very well against people from wealthier backgrounds. People should focus on how they support their children to the best of their abilities rather than spending so much time feeling bitter about what others have