To think that there would be less anti private school

[Poopoolittlekitten]

sentiment or threads on MN if people using private school were a tiny bit more self aware and didn’t ask for sympathy for rising fees or possible rising fees if Labour take away their false ‘charity’ status?

send your kid private if you want, just don’t come moaning about the costs or claim than anyone can go private if they ‘prioritise’ their child’s education they way you do. Particularly at a time when state school teachers are striking over pay and conditions.
And many, many people are working their socks off just to keep a roof over their family’s head.

YANBU - stop whining and looking for sympathy about your fees!

YABU - my milkman sends his 4 kids private by ‘prioritising’ their education so it’s not just for whiny poshos….

Charities that benefit those who just happen to be wealthy - such as cancer charities etc - are different. People from all socioeconomic backgrounds get sick.

Charities that operate primarily and predominantly to perpetuate the privilege of the wealthy elite are not the same at all. If they genuinely catered equally to all demographics, then it would be a different conversation but they don't. Research has shown that most of the bursaries go to families who are already wealthy.

I completely disagree. Taxes have never been higher and I pay enough tax as it is. The issue is how it’s being managed/spent. Shaking me down for more money to give to Michelle Mone is not the answer.

OP, so much bitterness and jelousy is not good for you. Your posts come across as unhinged, you seem so invested in your contempt against private schools. Get help.

I think the state should fund, at a discount, more places in private schools if they are to keep their charitable status.

Here's why.

The state system is not suited to ND kids, mine has ASD and ADHD and whilst bright can't cope with noise, large classes or schools. She is thriving in an "affordable" private all girls school.

Equity isn't about treating everyone the same. Treating everyone the same is sometimes the most unfair thing you can do.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves ‘Research has shown that most of the bursaries go to families that are already wealthy’.
This is not my experience, having had DC in private schools and teaching in them. Bursaries are means tested. Perhaps you could share this research?

You still haven't answered what the Ofsted rating of your kids' school is and how well it does regarding attainment. I strongly suspect it's good or outstanding, so you really don't need to boast about sending your kids there. Many private school parents would much rather do the same if it was a viable option!

"Private schools, in the main (excluding those that cater for children who can't engage with mainstream schooling) are ways to convert money into advantage for your offspring."

This is the same as a lot of other charitable organisations which include sports clubs and tutoring all of which are VAT exempt. Parents pay for them as they think they will benefit their child. Do you feel the same way about these?

They are a charity they provide education to children - many accept donations from previous students or others to make sure they can continue, and use it on the children they are teaching. Just because the students at the schools come from on average wealthier families doesn't mean it cannot be a Charity.

Our VAT/Tax system is set up to encourage spending on things such as children's sports, clothes and education and discourage us spending on things such as alcohol, cigarettes, fuel and sugary drinks which I think makes sense.

I see the logic in VAT on school fees. Sounds fair enough in theory, but in practise, I don't think it would make education more equitable at all. Probably it would have the opposite effect in reality.

There is already a huge range in 'private school fees.' I've heard, in certain parts of the U.K., it can be £3k per term? Where I live, it can be anything from £5k per term, to 8-9k per term for the 'bigger name' London Day Schools.

At a school one of mine went to in London, fees increased from 7k ish to 9k in the time she was there. But the school has a significant bursary programme - 25% receive some kind of bursary, of which about half are on full bursaries. A proportion of the high fees people pay funds the bursary programme. In addition, local schools use the sports facilities regularly. At weekends local families can use the pool etc. Following the Grenfell fire, the school absorbed the students and teachers from an affected school so they could finish their GCSEs. The school won a TES award for improving social mobility (alongside the NHS and the Home Office).

Its one thing if you live in what could be called 'middle England' and there is probably not much difference between the local comp and the local independent. It's very different though in places like London where extreme poverty and extreme wealth exist side by side. One of mine (for SEN reasons) attended a local state school - there was a fatal stabbing in broad daylight on school premises, witnessed by students.

Many of the independent schools around here are not 'accessible' anyway, regardless of how much money you have, because they only take the top 2% in terms of academic ability. These schools are ridiculously competitive in terms of 11 plus entry. Children of politicians, celebs, whoever, are turned down more often than not. Doesn't matter who you are if you're not in the top x% in the entrance exams. And if you perform very well, but can't pay the fees, they will want you. They want the most able kids who will get the results to maintain the school's position in the league tables. Even so-called 'back up' independent schools in London are still likely to be 4 or 5 applicants per place and entry is via academic selection. There is no such thing as 'pay your money and waltz on in.'

All that will happen if VAT is put on school fees (round here at least) is that bursary programmes will be hit first. Schools will adjust fees because they are businesses. Some families won't care; some will just pay anyway and those who can't will move to where there are safe state schools with no stabbings or other violence. People who attend good safe state schools around here already pay the equivalent of school fees anyway in inflated house prices and stamp duty to move into certain catchment areas.

Its a very complex issue and the reason people use state schools is very region-specific. If we lived in an area with safe state schools we would use them. DH and I are both state-educated and of course we know it's absolutely fine, even excellent, in many cases. But not always.

With the rse in rents and house prices there are fewer children so schools are already beginning to close
Best to fundstate education to improve opportunities for the majority including nd not just a lucky few with wealthy parents or bursaries . Will reduce crime

Sure. Don't have time to look for links to the original research but the first article relates to a study by UCL and the second relates to an international study that looked at UK private schools.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jan/31/private-school-bursaries-still-too-scarce-to-tackle-inequality

https://inews.co.uk/news/education/scholarships-private-schools-grants-954840

Anecdotally, the schools near me do means test for bursaries, but they typically award sums of £1k-2k to families who are affluent but not super-rich. Small bursaries are only of any value to those who have a spare £10k or so a year to make up the difference.

There are vanishingly few private school places with 100% funding for pupils whose families genuinely couldn't afford it, and even fewer for children who are not gifted or talented in some area that the schools think they can benefit from.

Doesn't make any sense. Most bursaries are means tested. That's the point.

Saying education is a luxury item because only the wealthy can afford it is a bit like saying tampax is luxury product because so many women have inadequate supplies.

Yes, the tax system isn't the problem. The problem is wages, zero hour contracts, and failures in the public system.

The second article is referring to scholarships, not bursaries. Scholarships are typically low value and awarded on a particular talent in sport or the arts, or on academic ability.
I don’t see where, in the first article, it says bursaries are going to high income families. The top 10% of earners are excluded from the calculation, and the percentage benefiting outside of that top 10% is low. It doesn’t mean any of that top section benefited. That’s my understanding anyway!
There are schools with a large number of children from low income families on bursaries, Christ’s Hospital being one.

A lot of people” who send their kids to private school previously objected to the concept? I can’t say it’s a trend I’ve observed.

There are posters on here who still object (as opposed to previously objected) to private education and yet use it.
I’ve read several posts - sorry it would take too long to find them in the numerous private school threads - in which the posters say they would love to abolish private education despite the fact their dc go to them.

Yes, scholarships are typically something like free music lessons for vert musical children. They often come with obligations, like helping our with concerts and Open Days. Not the same thing as bursaries.

‘I do take issue with charitable status for organisations which typically benefit the wealthiest in our society’

I doubt most people think of Brighton College, Harrow, Roedean, Dulwich, St Paul’s and the rest when they think of charity… it’s not the first thing that springs to mind

No I don't those of those schools as 'charities,' I must admit. The fact they are though, should not be used a reason to prevent anyone anywhere posting on MN - whether it's about fees or whatever. You don't need to take threads personally. People are not posting to you to wind you up - they are seeking a relevant discussion with others with DC in those type of schools and, like it ir not, there are quite a lot of them on MN, as you will see if you visit the education boards. Just as there are people on here from all walks of life and why wouldn't there be?

@threemiaowingfaces - you raise really good points about schooling in London. With the exodus of children and families out of London this is a very poorly thought out policy from Labour.

Actually, what I want to hear is how they are going to sort out the failing state education system, not how they are going to destroy the private system on the side. Where we live the private system similarly supports the state sector and all of my DC have been to maths extension classes and swimming in the local private school and have also started playing sports against them regularly. I think many of the concerns people voice against private schools have actually already been addressed by the ones that can afford to support the local community.

I would like to see full reports of how the policy will benefit the Treasure and the country in the long run. I am pretty sure we will find it increasingly difficult to hire the right people coming from abroad if they cannot get school places in London in private schools. It is hard enough as it is and it is already one point many cite against relocation. The fact you have to have an address before you can apply for a school place is really difficult for many international people coming to London.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that lots of privileged educated people are voting Lib Dem now. I really think Labour need to start listening or the Tories are going to win again and finish the country off.

My college at Cambridge also has charitable status - they constantly ask for money in the form of gift aid and to be remembered in our wills. Oxbridge are pretty elitist too - will they be attacked next? What then? Surely the elite unis prop our reputation up internationally? Will students be charged VAT on uni fees too?

@Intergalacticcatharsis i know it’s such a race to the bottom with labour no thought of improvement just cutting everything down to lowest denomination

The articles that I linked to are both quite clear that neither scholarships or bursaries are being used to tackle inequality. And yes, I'm well aware that scholarships are different but I included that link because in my experience, private schools are far more likely to want to fund gifted kids from low income backgrounds than ordinary ones because there is clearly something in it for them.

You can debate the details of the articles as much as you like, but the underlying message is clear. These schools are not using bursaries or scholarships to tackle inequality. If you don't agree with those conclusions, please share some evidence that demonstrates that schools are providing lots of full bursaries to children from genuinely low-income families? Do you have data on how many children received 100% means-tested bursaries, for example? I'm willing to bet that it's vanishingly low.

Saying that bursaries are "means tested" is just smoke and mirrors tbh. They can be means tested while still primarily helping the poorer end of "very rich"! Ie the people who can "only" afford to pay £12k a year in school fees rather that £15k or £20k! I know quite a few families on way above the "average" household income who receive bursaries for their children. Yes, it helps them to cover the fees by knocking off a few thousand to make them more affordable, but what they have to pay to make up the difference is still way out of reach for a lot of families.

Until someone can present some convincing evidence that demonstrates the significant positive contributions of the private education sector in tackling social inequality and opening their doors to all pupils regardless of their background, I'm unlikely to change my current belief that private schools do not offer much in the way of "public good" and that they are therefore undeserving of their charitable status. There might be a few schools that buck the trend, but across the sector as a whole, that really isn't what they're about!

I don't think one person is arguing that education itself is a luxury. They are merely saying that private education is a luxury. And that, as such, it should be taxed.

I'm talking about the public in general, not specific individuals. People love to moan when other people have something they can't have.

How many rich people do you hear moaning that the rich should be taxed more?

I wouldn't say that I was rich but I'm certainly relatively well off. I absolutely believe that people like me should be taxed more, and so do quite a lot of my friends who also happen to be quite affluent.

Earning a high salary doesn't automatically make you indifferent to what's happening in society as a whole, you know. I'm astonished that this needs to be pointed out.