to think private schools having charitable status is taking the piss

[zanz1bar]

Most private schools have their charitable status as an accident of history. Does a school like Eton really deserve the same financial status as the NSPCC.

Can it really be justified by a few subsidized places.

bathtime - I have no illusion about the 'contribution' I could make to a state school. It would be limited to what I was prepared to hand over to the PTA fundraiser. To be truthful I have little or no influence over the private school I send DSs to apart from threatening to withdraw them and send them to another school.

I would have no power to influence anything. The LEA pays the teachers, the LEA answer to the Govt department or the local councilors and Ofsted inspect. The school has no reason to listen to parents - they can like it or lump it as far as the LEA are concerned as parents have no choice. We can see that a attitude all over the state eductation sector.

TDiddy - related to the point I made above about influencing the school. Yes Fiona Miller did that at her local school. Good on her for making a difference but do you really think me ringing up the LEA and demanding change would have the same effect? I doubt it.

I go away for almost 3 hours and not much has changed here. I'm shocked at the amount of nastiness though.

Few points - the Russell Group thingy - we had a long thread on that last week that brought up most of the issues. The key thing is that everyone gets their place on their own merit, so anyone in a RG place deserves it. And RG places are not a shoe-in for anyone - they all have to be worked for.

My own education being at state expense. Well, I was 'state educated' for univesity (4 years UG and 1 year PGCE). It seems to me that everyone in the country is entitled to this (as long as they meet entrance requirements), so why should my place be viewed differently from anyone else's? Also, I have worked and paid taxes for over 10 years, so I think I have paid back the cost of my state education. My parents also paid taxes at the time.

Someone said that children who are privately educated are at the expense of the state sector. I don't see that at all. Private education is independent of the state sector. It takes nothing away from it at all.

Someone said that if I moved my children into the state sector and then gave up my tax-paying status, someone else would replace me - true, but they would only replace a third of me. They would be far more likely to work as a teacher for only a few years and give up due to stress or just not liking it. It is still a false economy.

And the it's not fair argument. Life isn't fair. We do not live in a communist society - that particular experiment did not work and cost a lot of a pain, and poverty of aspirations. I don't think that it is fair that hard working people support those with life-style choices which means that they sponge off the state.

bathtime- I am with you ideologically but find it hard to walk the walk. We didn't get into the very good local state school- we got bumped by siblings altho we paid a premium for our house. So we rushed around and found private school. All three children are now there flying so it would now break my heart to rip them out.

So I can't reconcile my politics with my instinct of giving them the best possible chance especially as I am lucky to be able to pay the fees (altho' I feel like I shouldn't be paying up).

I would be all for abolishing private schools so that we are all in the same boat. A good black friend of mine says that she doesn't care about her hyprocritical politics as black kids underperform in the state sector for all sorts of reasons and she will not keep her money and watch her son fail.

So I agree with the concepts but life is complicated. It is good that so many of you can walk the walk though

Not true in my area, bathtime. My LEA has some of the best regarded schools in the country (if you can get a place in them!) as well as lots of private schools (again some of the best in the country). So your argument does not stand up.

An area with a lot of private schools has them because it is an area where a lot of affluent people live. And a significant number of those people will send their Dcs to state schools which will consequently become above average performers.

There is also a lot of dipping in and out of the different systems at different stages of children's education.

Oh scienceteacher Again with the spongers and low life wasters argument, raise your standards.

You could be writing about me, TDiddy!

ABetaDad- I trhink Fiona Millar got very very involved in her community. It wasn't just a matter of pulling strings. One Sunday I was in her street and I saw a gang of boys pick a fight with owners of kebab shop. Everyone stayed in their house, naturally. I saw her come out in the street to try to alleviate the situation by talking to the shop owners and risking her life. SO we shouldn't dismiss her as some kind of string puller. I think she is an active citizen and a role model.

Bathtime

It is not true to say that ares where there are private schools have worse state schools.

Take surrey as an eg. 25% of children are educated in private schools. There are also a large number of high achieving state primary schools.

I think the existence of good private and good state schools keeps both sectors on their toes. If the 25% of children educated in private schools were to be moved to the state sector I would imagine the council would struggle to find the money for the extra school places and the quality of education would go down.

On the whole private schools provide a positive educational experience. In an ideal world the government would look at the differences between the private and state schools and make improvements to state schools so that they are as good as private schools.

When you look at the origins of some of the top public schools in this country you will find they were created on the basis on providing an education for poor children.

Let's bring back those schools to that original concept and then it's fair I'd say.

But it is true, Zanzibar.

I don't think it is 'fair' that we should support spongers. Why do you think it is fair?

I am not talking about all poor people, just those who are able and still put two-fingers up to society.

If I agree about the RG thing do I get to wave my Bristol acceptance letter and ask you to ignore the fact that we couldn't actually afford for me to go there becuase of housing costs? Merit is all very well but it's so rarely that simple.

I think indie does take away from state in many ways but they're incidental (yet significant): ds1 has attended two schools, both state but where he is now is Church so has a lot of the same parents who would otherwise opt for paid IYSWIM. There is a difference- even if you apre it down to basics as far as things like the amounts of cash aprents can afford to throw at events and equipment. Very little indeed back home, rather a lot here.

PLus if you've got a school that takes say the top 3% on scholarships (not so common now) that does take away rom a class, of course it does.

the benefits / fairness thing is irrelevant though. I don't think its fair that people can choose benefits as a lifestyle option, I dont think its fair that ds3 only gets to attend and SNU, or that I'm living off caraers allowance and you know what? Thats not a reason for me to say stuff it, reverything else can be unfair then. Its a reason for me to want to minimise the amount of unfairness I see instead

Ah, I rather think it's the other way round. Teachers who can't cut the mustard in the state sector leave for the private sector where they (apparently) don't need to plan lessons. Behaviour does drive a lot of teachers out, yes. Fortunately, I know many excellent teachers like me I hope who can teach inspiringly AND manage behaviour here in Inner London.

My kids will go to the nearest school. And then we'll work on making it great if it isn't already. Having taught in (and been to) London comprehensive schools, I know my kids will be fine, maybe even enriched by the experience. Can think of so many things I'd rather spend the money on - seems such a con?

And charitable status? I dont really care but it seems like a joke.

well, you could say that opting out of the state sector and taking your parental concientiousness, your naice children and your money to a private business rather than supporting your local state school is 'putting two fingers up to society'

(PS black kids with educated parents do NOT underperform in the state sector IME, it is about poverty not ethnicity IMVHO)

Surrey is not homogenous, flopsy.

There may be pockets of good state schools, but the LEA as a whole is not great.

Not really, greensleeves.

Last time I looked, private schools were very much part of society.

Surely 'charity' in this case means not for profit? Haven't read the thread so sorry if that point has been made. I went to a private, fee paying school, and was in the last year that full scholarships were given (thanks labour ). It makes me sad to see my old school now, which you once had to pass an exam to get into (no doubt the odd backhander or two went on as well) full of those who may have nothing to recommend them but their parents' stuffed wallets. That should be the issue here. By taking away scholarships, labour basically said that a good education is for those who can pay for it. I can tell you without hesitation that my life would be vastly different had I gone to the local shitty comp.

ABD

"You nor anybody else who pays tax in this country contributes a penny to the actual cost of my childrens' education."

Tut, tut - v v crafty.

If that's the case, they don't need the tax break, do they? It's fully funded by fees.

But of course, that also goes contrary to what every other defender of the status quo has said on this thread, viz. that without this tax break fees would go up.

Now, please, make up your mind - which is it?

I have to say that I do think that the current school structure is an historical anomaly. The amount of government subsidy is actually pretty small, especially when one carves out say 20 high landowning establishments. VAT isn't charged on any education fees - education is VAT exempt regardless of whether the educating body is a charity or not.

The main problem with the historical position is that once a school is set up as a charitable organisation there isn't a simple way for it to convert. The only method possible (which is being used by some smaller schools) is for the Trustees of the school to sell all the assets to a profitmaking company (eg Cognita) who then run the school going forward. The Trust then has to use that cash for charitable purposes. Alternatively the Trustees have to wind up the charity eg by selling the land and buildings to a property developer, and again manage to use the cash for charitable purposes.

It is fine for the current government to gun for private schools, but they haven't really provided much of a way out. Few small private schools have the resources to fund significant bursaries unless the current set of parents all agree to a fee increase. There will continue to be a demand for private education, which can be filled by profitmaking companies. In the meantime there will be hideous churning and merging of schools to pursue some pointless agenda. Private education will continue especially as long as schools are controlled so remotely from parents. New schools or organisations will leap into the marketplace to meet the demands of the market. Of course the big players such as Eton and Winchester will not go under. Even if they were threatened with the removal of charitable status they wouldn't have to look very far to find someone who would buy them out.

I do wish that this government had spent less time attacking private schools by demolishing the assisted places scheme and now by targeting charitable status, and more time considering why private education continues to be popular.

Greensleeves, i am sure our LEA is very pleased that we are failing to support our local state school as they cannot provide us with a place anyway.

Abetadad - of course one parent alone wouldn't change things, but time and again it has been shown that when the middle classes decide to support a dodgy school, it is transformed (loads of examples in London). Parents DO change local schools - if for no other reason than the presence of loads more middle class children changing the school.

scienceteacher - how can you not see that by creaming off the most middle class/wealthiest children from a school that the very nature of the school is affected?

The people who end up "sponging" off the state may well be the people who have been failed by the education system. Would you rather do your job/earn your salary/pay loads of tax or sit at home all day and get a few thousand a year in benefits??

Life's not fair - FranK Goodwin's pension would privately educate an entire council estate!!

Sorry ABetaDad, what would I know? I've only worked in both the private and the state sector.

I've known a fair few teachers who have jumped from private to state because of better working conditions Believe it or not, unions are no frequently recognised in the provate sector and some of the employment practises are decidedly dodgy. You also get more transparent recruitment practises and are less likely to end up working for the mate of the Head Teacher. Some switch because the opportunites in the public sector are greater, less who you know than what you know over this side of the fence, and some want the opportunity to teach subjects and groups they have no access to in the private sector. I've also known a few who switched because they genuinely felt they could give the public sector the benefit of their superior knowledge. While a noble sentiment, these are the ones who require a map.

Of course many teachers do not make the switch. That is because, lacking as many of them are in the basic qualifications needed to teach in a public school, they never make the cut. Of course private schools like to employ unqualified teachers, they are much cheaper.

Which bit of the language do you object to AppleandMosesMummy? The 'arse' bit? I can assure you, private school children are well aware of the term, not that I would use it in the classroom of course. A private school education is not going to stop them being exposed to language like that, they hear it in the playground every day.

MIFLAW, the point is that nobody is a NET contributor to BetaDad's kids education as he is saving the state the cost of providing a state school place. The charitable status benefits would not cover this cost.

Completely agree slug, I think it's fair to sya it was private school that gave me my potty mouth

Why are you assuming these are the best pupils? The common wisdom at Mumsnet is that private school students are nice but dim. It doesn't sound as if they will up the profile of even the worst state school .

And why would their parents' wealth mean anything, when it doesn't cost anything to attend a state school? Although, saying that, if my kids went to state schools, I think I would buy them their own text books so that they didn't have to share one-to-three.