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.

The ISC quotes that the tax benefit of charitable subsidy is £100m per year. As there are over 600,000 children in private education this amouts to around £166 per child. The ongoing charitable subsidy is not the reason that schools are hanging onto charitable status. The reason that schools hold onto charitable status is that once a charitable trust owns the assets then they are stuck with charitable status unless they close or sell the school - as per my message of 14:21.

Most private schools would love to be able to lose their charitable status as it would let them escape further from government interference. And most parents would cough up the extra £166 to do so too!

£166 is a drop in the ocean.

Ladymuck, do you know what will happen to the two schools that were stripped of their charitable status? I would imagine that closing would be a bit draconian.

My understanding is that they are in discussions with the Charity Commission as to what %age of their income should be used to fund bursaries, and see whether that is achievable. They're unimpressed as the bursary issue seems to be the main point that the CC are considering - no issue about sharing resources with local state schools or any form of community partnership. I think ranges of between 2 and 7% are being bandied around but not sure by whom exactly. But essentially if the measure of "public benefit" is going to be what % of income is used to fund bursaries, then it is hard not to see this as a rather strange from of tax? Very peculiar in the smaller prep schools where this bursaries will go to benefit say at most one pupil in a class. Anyone want to be known as the bursary kid?

My sons' school worked out how much extra the fees would be per boy, per annum without the charity status tax breaks and it would have added something like £126 per boy, per annum. When you are paying £15,000 per boy per annum, it's not really terribly serious is it?

Whilst I fully appreciate that the are wider costs to society that come from having a two tier system, the charity status issue is a red herring as it aint going to solve it. I hope everyone realises that this is more New Labour puff.

UQD - in answer to your query above. You come across as having misconceptions about private schools...eg. assuming there are fewer properly qualified teachers.

I also pick up a lot of resentment in your posts. You can not send your children to private schools so you feel it is wrong that they exist. I remember that you went to a grammar school and are always busy defending grammar schools when these could also be regarded as unfair as most areas of the country don't have grammar schools any more.

I don't really have the money to send my children privately at the moment either but I do not resent the fact that other people can. I don't think our education system would be any better without private schools.

As I said above I think that instead of knocking the private sector people should demand that state schools are improved until they are as good as the better private schools.

There are of course many very good state schools about and I'm lucky enough to have a few on my doorstep. Therefore I don't find science teachers posts constantly knocking the state sector very positive either.

I have experienced both sectors myself and for my children and feel people really do have too many mis-conceptions and are not open minded enough on this issue.

LM doesn't that happen anyway? My ExP was 'the bursary kid' at his school and felt very much as if he had been labelled rfom the start. He did aslo say though that he stood out for toher reasons- only one to miss out on school ski trips etc.

Interestingly they had withdrawn the Bursary by the time his youngest sibling satrted so his aprents stopped paying the accountant who produced the application form and started paying the fees instead , no idea if that is common or not.

It's a shame that the focus is on bursary funding, there are a lot of people out there who could benefit from other activities- for example I wanted to start a local ASD siblings group but coulodn't get a venue. A classroom would have done a treat and cost them no more than a lightbulb for 2 hours.

I do think though that it has to be a one rule for all thing: charities do have to follow strict rules, and that has to for everyone. Indie schools shouldn't be targetted any mroe than anyone else, but should be just as liable.

'There are of course many very good state schools about and I'm lucky enough to have a few on my doorstep. Therefore I don't find science teachers posts constantly knocking the state sector very positive either'

Very valid point- many of the parents at our school would have gone private but feel they need not due to the quality of education available not just from our school but most of the local ones.

MIFLAW - what are you basing your views on regarding the top 4 of my students all going to oxbridge (IF they all applied, which they didn't) if they were 'lucky' enough to attend a private school? Are you suggesting that the students at my school don't get support and coaching for their oxbridge applications?

I have honestly lost count of the number of students that I have taught who subsequently went on to study at Oxbridge. A lot of extremely bright students chose not to study there however, and that is not ' bad'!

I do remember one girl, about 6 years ago, who did gain a place at Oxford to stduy Physics. I remember thinking that their selection process had failed somehow, as although she was a straight A student she was not really bright. The school had coached her heavily before the selection process though (different school, much higher proportion of very bright students due to catchment). She found the first year very hard and changed to an easier course in the second year. Her older brother, in contrast, also gained straight A's but he was exceptionally bright and went on to gain a first in Mathematics at Cambridge.

Not on fees, no - on school development funds. If your school doesn't regularly raise the odd few million to build a new pool, science block, sixth form study area, art centre, sports centre... then it's very different from the ones I'm familiar with.

And would those be the bursaries used to ensure the school in question sits comfortably high up on the league tables, and has a good record of Oxbridge entrance? Because no school can afford to stop those - they're central to marketing to new parents, and would be especially so if the tax breaks were abolished and schools would be fighting for every student.

Private schools are businesses. They tout for new pupils at international education trade shows, they take a zero tolerance approach to bad publicity, and they are incredibly keen to achieve a high UCAS score and Oxbridge entry rate. They won't jeopardise that, they'll just shuffle the cost onto existing parents.

"I was careful to say taht I did not regard everyone in receipt of state benefits as spongers. Only those that are able to work and don't. There is quite a difference."

Hmmm. And what makes you think there are legions of such people? And actually, what makes them relevant in any way to this conversation, anyway? It makes no sense. It's a non sequiteur.

Very true PeachytTheRiver....I know I would sent my son to a private school if I felt the need. I am sure a lot of the students I teach have parents who could fairly easily afford to sent their children private too, if they felt the need. There most certainly is a 'need' in some areas - unfortunately made worse my many of the brightest being creamed off into the private sector.

smallwhitecat - I think she officially removed herself from the process.

I note that her Wikipedia entry says she was educated at a private school. That was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary%27s_School_(Calne) St Mary's School (Calne)
]].

She has 3 children one of which was still at a Devon fee paying school when this Guardian article was written.

My first ever 'Discussion of the day'.

(Although I dont always agree qwith ST, can I just point out that in the past she's made it very cleat that she really doesnt mean all claimants- IIRC she once told me off for counting myself in as I am in receipt of carers allowance)

sorry, as you were

Those links again were.

smallwhitecat - I think she officially removed herself from the process.

I note that her Wikipedia entry says she was educated at a private school. That was St Mary's (Calne).

She has 3 children one of which was still at a Devon fee paying school when this Times article was written.

happywomble - well, you have me a bit wrong. It's true that I went to a state grammar school, though. Nothing wrong with that. Private and faith-school education focus on what's best for the parent, not the child. An academically selective system is, I think, a totally different kettle of fish - although I realise some may not agree.

I'd like to correct the (slight, but telling) misquote of me too. Nowhere did I "assume there are fewer properly qualified teachers". I simply said "you don't need a PGCE to teach in a private school, whereas you do in a state school." That's a statement of fact. We can argue the toss over how many actually have a PGCE even if they don't need it.

Yes you went to a state grammar school. There was no state grammar school in my county. So you do think it was fair enough that my parents put me in for the assisted place to selective private school or not? If you had not lived in an area with grammar schools would you have been as happy to go to a comprehensive with no sixth form?

Heck, this debate moves on fast and is obvious very very passionate as it involves our children's futures. Even as a private school payer, I feel strongly that we would all be better off if none of us had the choice to send kids to private school.

We would have a bit more money, state schools would be better/good enough. The govt (tax payer) would be a bit worse off though as they would have to cough up for extra places if we came back to the sector.

I guess it depends on whether they would increase taxes on the better off to pay for the extra education costs.

Also, another unintended consequence is that house prices next to the better schools would increase further.

I am trying to say is that there are no easy answers and no free rides.

It is also ludicrous to suggest that private school parents are currently being subsidised by the sate. How could that be.

Apologies if i am going over old ground as I can't possibly read all of this thread.

What nonsense to suggest that faith and private schools are not good for the child!

Didn't say that - read again.

Of course YANBU. Private schools are profit-making bodies and if some parents believe it's worth paying for their children to have an education outside the state sector then they are willing consumers and should bear the cost. If they are struggling to do so maybe they should rethink - nobody's heart is going to bleed; buying what they see as privilege for their DC is their own choice.

Handing out the odd bursary for the parents of 'teachers and nurses' (umm - can't think of any of my teaching or nursing friends who would care to take up that offer, or who would enjoy their DC being seen as 'charity cases) is not justification for charitable status. As for fee-paying parents saving the state money - well maybe they do, a little, but then their chidren cream off the best- paid and highest prestige jobs in most sectors of business, industry, politics etc. purely by dint of their schooling. There are so many nice but dim yet terribly confident public school chaps and gels in positions of power they don't deserve. So I personally would be happy to pay an extra pence in the pound to enable my state-educated DC and the majority of other children in this country to be judged on their personal merits and not on their old school ties.

oh is it turning into battle of the dads?

My last comment was in reply to UQD

Peachy - thanks, and I apologise to ST for that bit of mistrust. I just hate it when people regard a decent state insurance system as some sort of sponger's charter, and it's depressingly common, ime. It's a safety net with frighteningly large holes in already.

This thread is a little too mangled for points to be coming through clearly. Several different arguments at once. There are some clearer ones being made on the one rather provocatively titled "why do you all hate private schools so much?"