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?

What an original point!

I don't think it's unreasonable to think about schools when you're moving house anyway, just as you'd think about all local amenities. I do think its distasteful when there's a mad year 5 rush to good catchments, which I've not actually seen much but which I'll accept the MN wisdom is the case in all the places I don't live. I think that's bad but I think private schools are even worse.

And lottie I think we all know not all private schools are academically selective: there are many that will take a child who isn't especially bright, if their parents can pay. Not many bursaries or scholarships for children who don't shine academically or musically or in sport though, are there? The free places are selective: it's only if you have the cash that you can get in without selection.

--In a year's time 5 of the 6 children in the top set in each year 5 class (my ds's class/set) will be 'creamed off' into private/church/grammar schools and my son will be going to the local comprehensive without that group of children to learn alongside. He can't go to a private/church school and has little chance of a grammar place. His experience of education will be poorer because of the missing clever children that he currently works alongside, and who enhance his learning experience.

So yes, it does piss me off. It strikes me as divisive and bad for society. And unfair. Very, very, very unfair.--

It seems by your reckoning that church and grammar schools are equally as guilty so I am curious as to why you focused on private schools exclusively.

I would suggest though that because they are fee paying doesn't mean the children are all the creme de la creme. It means their parents can afford the school fees.

When our many local private schools start running subsidised holiday and sports clubs for local DCs. I will feel they deserve their charity status. Until then I'm very very sceptical.

I have nothing against private schools, DDs best friends go to one and DDs pay full wack for a superb holiday club they run two weeks in the holidays, but I really do feel being a charity should go beyond, part fee, scholarships that are only viable for MC DCs.

Lottiedoubtie more and more excuses for why no-one wants to help the kid I described. "Gosh, we're already providing people with the cachet of attending a private school with social networks, especially if we're a feeder school for Fettes or Gordonstoun. It's education, what more do you want?"

I'll call that one kid Jayden (and he was not the only one I helped but he was one of the more severely deprived). I used to remove anything with a sharp point from him before my session, because he was really sensitive about being taunted for being thick. He knew he wasn't, but his family life wasn't remotely stable. This meant that if he was given homework, he might not be able to complete it before events took control. Like his mum being arrested again.

I remember loads of positives about Jayden. He grasped concepts really quickly. I had a hope that my small intervention would help him, and when I heard he ended up in the jail I cried. I had liked him, and I had hoped he would do better.

So do we write Jayden off because he was too deprived and it would cost too much money to help him? Because Brainella might have to meet him at some point? What? And if private schools are charities, is someone as desperate but intelligent as him not worthy, and if so why not?

Bash bash bash people earning a good wage and making different choices to you.

Think the state schools could easily accomodate all the kids from private schools? JOG ON.

What an original point!

^ It wasn't a point, it was a question and one you haven't answered. Why is paying school fees worse?

If private schools (which are selective) are taxed on their funding, should church and grammar schools (which are also selective) be similarly taxed on the funding they receive. You stated they were as divisive and bad for society as the others.

steamingnit an example of house prices and catchments can be found in Hale (Altrincham). Altrincham has two high achieving state grammar schools, one for girls and one for boys, the house prices within the catchments are astronomical in comparison to surrounding areas. People do move to the area because they know it is much much easier to get a place at the schools if you live in catchment. People on average wages cannot afford to live there. A little distance from hale is another area called Lymm. Lymm has excellent (non grammar) schools and the houses there cost even more because as long as you are in catchment you can have a place at the excellent school.

It is worse because in all but a few catchments for state schools, there will be at least some and usually quite a lot of diversity of income and background, and because although it's unfortunate if a catchment is largely white or wealthy, the MO and rationale of the school is still to provide all the children who live nearby with an education. Which I personally find a much more laudable aim than the aim to provide all children whose parents can find £4k a term with an education, away from the children whose parents cannot.

And because state schools don't confer a sense of privilege and entitlement on those who attend them at the expense of those who don't.

Yes, miss, as I say: I accept it happens elsewhere. Grammars introduce another issue to the discussion, of course...

The children in my DD's school are certainly not the creme de la creme. They are just ordinary kids whose parents can afford the fees.

Some struggle with learning, some cause disruption in class and out. Many are going on to the local state school for S5/6 (6th form) as they don't want to do the qualification which the private school does.

Incidentally there is absolutely no divide in our town between the state school pupils and the private school pupils. They all mix and socialise well.

But yet you still wanted to make sure your child was on the one side rather than the other, even though they all mix so well?

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?

Topsy the reason it's not distasteful to move into the catchment area of a school is because the buyer is paying the market rate. The purchasers of private are NOT paying the going rate, they are subsidised. Fees would have to rise rather a lot if the charitable status were to go. In addition, teachers in the private schools get their pensions from the state, the Teachers' Superannuation Funds. They should be made to go private.

The idea that private school supporter are doing us all a favour by not educating their child in a state school is laughable: do car owners expect a subsidy for not going on the 'bus?

Most people don't actually move to "get into the catchment of a good school"- it's one of those myths. Like the myth that those of us who are happy with state education must live in "leafy" areas. I am constantly amazed at the educational properties of leaves.

But this is all beside the point. This thread is asking whether private schools should have charitable status. Which obviously they shouldn't.

Supporters. Subject/verb agreement.

"Incidentally there is absolutely no divide in our town between the state school pupils and the private school pupils. They all mix and socialise well."

Really? That's fantastic- and I have never heard of a town where that happens. Somebody is doing a good job somewhere,

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

I think he might have had a shot at it. Not where he was though...

What I don't get is how anyone can say simultaneously "I want my child privately educated" and "I want them to never meet a Jayden" then defend private schools as charities. Charities are supposed to help the vulnerable. Jayden was vulnerable on every degree of vulnerable you can get. So why, then, does he not get to sit next to your child? Could it be, perhaps...that private schools aren't real charities?

The same legislation which enables private schools to be charities, also enables PTAs and academy trusts (academies which don't have sponsors and are not part of a chain) to be charities.

OP - are you also arguing that all PTAs charitable status should be revoked? After all, some are in quite leafy areas where the parents earn a lot of money (arguably the ones that raise the most), and the money they distribute is not evenly spread among all children in the locality, but just used to enhance the learning of children in one particular school...

I guess it depends on how much and to whom they help with educational opportunities.
My DC went to private schools on scholarships/bursaries. We were poor (low working or benefits depending on time). They had full fees remission, only costs of trips etc for us to pay.

I went to local comp at 14..my reports up to age of 14 said I was very able/should do well...I slid downwards. DH is a semi literate ex care system boy. We were supportive but not successful. I work for just above NMW in retail now. DH retired due to ill health. Only one member of family had gone to uni (older aunt was a teacher).

Prior to making the decisions we did to look at private I spoke to the state primary about DS1s progress to be told he wasn't that bright, needed to learn to behave and my expectations were too high. In other words they didn't expect much from him!
DS2 was badly bullied for being 'posh and brainy'
DD again not great expectations, well behaved, polite but not stretched..allowed to coast along.
It turns out many years later DS1 is ASD, has an IQ of 162. Now, he has still struggled over the years(MH) and hasn't 'achieved' but at the schools he went to they met his intellectual and physical needs (sporty). I think the DS2 and DD both gained in terms of academic success and confidence from the schools.
It was presumed they would succeed academically/socially/sport/arts not the default position of low expectation which we experienced. Now I know not all state school were/are like it but in our case without that funding and the schools status we would have struggled with the schools that were an option for us.

It is worse because in all but a few catchments for state schools, there will be at least some and usually quite a lot of diversity of income and background, and because although it's unfortunate if a catchment is largely white or wealthy, the MO and rationale of the school is still to provide all the children who live nearby with an education.

Wow, that's amazing that you know the situation for almost every state school catchment in the country!

hak where I live! the private schools put on events for selected children from the state schools (very selected, and in some cases by cash) and then tweet things like 'state and independent in true partnership here for the good of ALL children in [x] town'. I'm sure they would argue there was no divide and they all mix well.

Such, on the ground, is not actually the case.

theoriginal We moved into this area and looked at all schools. DD2 was still in primary and it was on her who were going to send to private as she needed to boost her confidence and we felt it would suit her needs well.

DD1 planned to attend the local state school and we looked around it the same day we looked at the private school. After both visits DD1 asked if she could attend the private school as she really wanted to do the qualification they offered. We did our sums and agreed she could.

It was never based on thinking the local state school was no good. We took account of the needs and opinions of our children.In short i suppose we were able to offer them a choice.

No topsy but I know that that is actually what a state comprehensive is! and does, by actual definition! And I also know that areas with 800 odd children in them almost always include a bit of diversity. And I also know that it's not necessarily the schools with th wealthiest catchments that perform the best. I'm not claiming special wisdom! That's just what a state comprehensive actually IS.

I don't believe privately educated children do save the govt money.
The marginal ie extra cost, of slipping a child into a state school classroom is very low .Little more than the cost of the stationery they use and the chair they sit on.Probably less than the current £200 per child being lost currently in tax revenue.
Secondly - do the private sector pay for initial teacher training? No they poach teachers who have been trained at state expense.Thos teachers in the private sector who are qualified that is!

Both my dad and my dh were given scholarships/Busaries for private for secondary. Both from families who could never have afforded it without these. Both got noticed at state primary and put forward by a teacher for the exam, not their parents.

Both have been very successful. DH especially is a total success story. First person in his family to do a levels, let alone uni, and he has a phd.

I think stories like these justify charitable status.