To be annoyed at The Guardian largely because it is such a dump solution - private schools

[Dlwch276]

So as part of their recent excessive coverage of a book which attacked the private school system (written by someone who went to private school) The Guardian has suggested adding VAT to school fees.

Asides raising more money via tax i don't see how this would make the system fairer? From what I've seen the logic is that parents who are motivated to pay £20k+ on fees would force state schools to improve if their children attended them. Mumsnet is full of posters at their wits ends trying to affect change at their local state schools. No-one that I've met at our small private is wringing their hands that the local state schools are terrible and that this gives their children extra advantage.

Surely to improve educational equality either we all need to pay more tax to change class sizes or poorer students need better access to private education. In NZ private schools receive the same student allowance as state schools - wouldn't this be a better solution for students not able to access private education? For everyone to sit the entrance exam and then private schools to have to accept the student allowance as fees for those who can't afford it?

^^ why would the state be subsidising private schools? Surely the state should plough spare money into state schools to make improvements there?

Although these days, bursary offers are often limited to scholars so you would need to be exceptional, but you wouldn't need to be rich

It doesn’t really change the fact that private schools are for the rich and that private education continues to fuel inequality.

"It doesn’t really change the fact that private schools are for the rich and that private education continues to fuel inequality."

Well it does mean that they're not solely for the rich. But if you remove charitable status they sure as hell will be solely for the rich.

The benefits afforded by private schools, for those who aren’t rich, is tiny.

So tiny in fact I don’t think they deserve to be called charities.

Well I did say there was lots of room for improvement, but what figures are you working from when you say it's tiny as I would be interested in seeing figures on how many in private school system have subsidies and at what levels.

If you’re a poor kid who wants a private education, you’ve got to be fucking clever or talented and with parents who’ve got the nous to even apply.

If you’re a middle of the road rich kid, you can get to private school easily. Just let the parents whip out the cheque book. Get to the right private school and who knows, you may end up in a top position in government and law.

That’s the inequality. Having money doesn’t make you better.

This, for me, is about making our country better. Let’s grow people from all backgrounds and expand the pool. Private schools just make things worse.

We aren't rich. Dd got a bursary and scholarship. She's gone from pretty average academically to predicted 7/8/9 in GCSE. Her private school is definitely doing something right.

I understand your argument about inequality but I'm still interested in your figures for percentages of children in private education that get subsidies, if you don't mind

I don’t have exact figures but there are 4 vocational dance schools 5 (I think) vocational music schools and then a lot of SEN private schools or pupil referral units where the state pays for children to attend)

If rich politicians and unelected influential people

Iggly who do you mean by the unelected influential people?

Comefromaway, not sure if your post was in reply to me, but I was asking about percentages/ numbers of children in private education that receive means tested nurseries to enable them to attend, re the point about the numbers being so tiny that it doesn't fill the criteria for charitable status.

I have no idea what the figures are but I got the impression Iggy did from what s/he was saying.

@remainymcremainface

I don’t know. But I know that less than 10% of all kids are privately educated so those that are subsidised will be much lower.

@Dapplegrey people who have influence but haven’t been voted into power. Eg lawyers, peers, journalists, lobbyists.

Thank you for answering my question Iggly.

Yes but we were talking about whether enough children in private education get financial assistance for the schools to have charitable status.

You said that a "tiny" amount do, but now you say you don't know the number.

So in fact it might be that 10% of children in private education get financial assistance, it might be 50%. Neither of us know.

What percentage of children in a school would need to be getting financial assistance for it to be deemed charitable, in your opinion?

Or would you rather bow out of this part of the discussion? I Don't mind if you do. Don't want to be a dog with a bone if you'd rather bow out.

So in fact it might be that 10% of children in private education get financial assistance, it might be 50%. Neither of us know

I know that 50% of 10% of the total population of school children is tiny. And I reckon it’s not that much.

I wouldn’t make such a statement if I thought it was a lot.

So yeah I’m pretty happy with my statement, thanks.

It certainly isn’t a sizeable minority.

But we're not talking about the entire population, that has no bearing on charitable status .

Posted too soon.

If an organisation can only have charitable status if it helps a significant portion of the entire population then a fuck load of charities are going to need to shut up shop

I don't think you've thought through the fact that removing charitable status makes them less accessible and removes any opportunity for kids that aren't rich to attend, the exact opposite of what you say you want.

Given measly handouts to a tiny number of kids; it’s hardly charitable I.e. for a public benefit. That’s my objection - it’s not easy to get into private school, the hurdles are many and it’s just a ruse to get the taxable benefits of being a charity.

Private schools don’t do it because they genuinely want to help any one in need of a decent education, who can’t afford it. They do it for a tiny handful so they can get tax breaks.

I don't think you've thought through the fact that removing charitable status makes them less accessible

I have.

They would still only be accessible to those who earn shit loads.

Of course they only do it to keep their charitable status. Hence why all bursaries will be gone if they lose it.

It sounds more like you'd like them all to be closed, which is a valid position to take, but not what you originally said in the post i originally responded to.

I don't think you've thought through the fact that removing charitable status makes them less accessible

I have.

They would still only be accessible to those who earn shit loads.

"I don't think you've thought through the fact that removing charitable status makes them less accessible

I have.

They would still only be accessible to those who earn shit loads."

I do t think you understand the difference between scholarships and bursaries so I shall leave the discussion here.

I don’t want them to pretend their charities when they clearly aren’t truely charitable.

I do t think you understand the difference between scholarships and bursaries so I shall leave the discussion here

I think you can tell I’m talking about private schools giving assistance to poorer kids.

But meh your argument will not sway me from the idea that private schools are not a cause for celebration in this country.

I think most people would agree that if we were starting the education system in England from scratch, we wouldn't aim to end up where we currently are (including church involvement, the patchwork of academies, free schools, LEA schools and private schools, postcode lotteries and shrinking catchments)

But we are where we are, and simply slapping VAT on school fees is so incredibly naive (polite version) or incredibly stupid (still a polite version of what I think... )