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.

BTW before I am attacked I am no different from some other people here - though I do not believe ideologically in private education I can see myself opting for it when Junior's time comes, if necessary salving my conscience by making her apply for academic scholarships so that it at least appears meritocratic.

What I won't be doing, though, is making myself out as a saint who is somehow doing the state sector a favour by pulling the rug from under it in my own selfish interests, or indeed hinting that my daughter's private education is a charitable endeavour in any reasonable sense of the word. It will be me, me, me from beginning to end and I will have to live with that.

One of the advantages of private secondary being sold to me is that they have the freedom not to follow the national circlm. And feedback is that some children (DS included) would benefit from more freedom to do other things. This is not a boast as he really does have fun learning stuff that would never be touched in school. There are many others like that.

I am still considering state sector for secondary. we shall see.

My son's applying to do medicine this year, it's what he's always wanted to do. I do wonder whether it would have been an option open to him if he'd remained in the state system (he left at 13). I really don't know. I was prepared to stump up the fees to make sure the option was at least open to him (smaller class size, proper academic subjects, excellent advice, a peer group with similar aspirations) and the rest has to come from him.

Charitable Status should not be, and is not, decided on the relative merits of the activity or the wealth of the people paying for it - it is decided on public benefit across a range of criteria. Quite simply, if the majority of the country cannot afford or access it, how can it possibly qualify as public benefit?

So you'll sacrifice your daughter at the alter of your ideals ?
Well go ahead because most of the labour party have fiddled their children's educational chances with either selective schools or private education but if you feel you can afford to take your chances good luck to you or more specifically her.

TIENSJEMESENSTOUTFEMI- do you have any children of school age? I ask , not to exclude you from the debate, but to point out that a parent who has been through the agonising choice might empathise more.

Witness Tony Blair being politically compromised by accusations of queue jumping for his choice of school for his son.

Happywomble, i didn't mean in terms of borrowing ideas, just that if there were no private schools then the energies of every parent would go into making the only type of school available much better.

Private schools have to keep the customer happy or they go out of business. They are therefore driven to produce what the customer wants. If those same cutomers were making the same demands in the state sector, they would drive improvements. Which is of course why state schools in affluent areas do better, there are parents with the resources (in every sense) to drive improvement.

"think they are just fine because they either don't know any different or aren't interested in education anyway. "

And there you have a view from someone employed by a charity, apparantly! What an ignorant, snobby (aka not in line with public benefit) and patronising opinion!

One my concerns is that the results of private schools and good grammar schools will be more heavily discounted for admissions in future. This is a big topic!

"So you'll sacrifice your daughter at the alter of your ideals?"

Nor even at the altar thereof.

If you read what I said, you would see that I am actively considering private education. That is why, throughout this thread, I have refused to criticise any parent for using private education.

I do criticise them for then whinging about bearing the full cost of that choice or acting as if they are doing everyone else a favour by taking their children out of the state system so many of them appear to despise.

"You pays your money, you takes your choice" as the saying goes.

TDiddy

School results have become a joke anyway. This IS a big topic, but also a different one. I can't see any schools offering anything other than some sort of bac before long.

Few private schools have the skill, experience or resource to accept pupils with SEN - and many lack the will, or specifically exclude these pupils.

How can schools which make a point of not having an equal opportunities admission be a charity?

Not read all so apologies if this has already been said but if the gov. takes away charitable status from private schools then they will need to build a LOT more state schools as parents will not be able to afford the extra fees. The cost of lost tax in charitable status is a lot lower, I believe, than the cost of providing all the extra state schools needed and fee-paying parents are already paying for state ed through taxes so where is that extra tax going to come from? Think we will see removal of charitable relief + tax hikes as the Treasury has several billion pounds to find. Charitable relief also under pressure I think from gov having to compensate those charities with savings in Iceland, not sure how that is going...

Jumping in here, I know, but in the US there are two main business categories: profit and non-profit. Schools, in the US, fall under the category of non-profit, because there are no shareholders or owners at the end of the day who take home any profit.

Charitable status is the equivalent, as far as legal structures go, to non-profit status.

Therefore, it makes sense to me that education firmly falls into the category of charitable activity, and I find the 2006 modifications to the Charities Act highly questionable.

In short, I don't think the question should be "do you believe in the charitable aims of a group?" because you'll always find people who disagree with what you are trying to do. I think that looking at the issue from the purely economic perspective is helpful.

swedesinsunglasses- that is the problem; you will never know if your son could have achiecved his dream of studying medicine in state sector. The answer probably depends on which state school as it is anything but a homogeneous sector.

Also, we should remember that the parental influence is as important as the school. The league tables don't disaggregate all of the drivers.

unquietdad, could you please link to the new thread about private education you mentioned in your last post here?

TIENSJEMESENSTOUTFEMI...- the BAC as it stands IMO is not the answer. Some teachers tell me it is a fallacy that they offer more choice as they box you in. A'levels are flexible and you can do 5 or 6 A'levels if you are keen and want breadth. And A'lvels offer rigour that the BAC doesn't.

A lot of generalisation going on about private and state schools here.

Tiens - read the thread and you will see that all my posts are relevant as they relate to the OP or posts others have made.
A bit rude to say "relevance?"

I don't think the bac is any better in terms of choice necessarily but I do think that they have rigour (as they are internationally comparable and so above immediate political concerns) which is precisely what A levels do not have. You sum it up yourself - "can do 5 or 6 A'levels if you are keen and want breadth." That's exactly what you couldn't do when I took mine. So how can they both be "A" levels? How can an employer compare me and a recent taker? How does old A grade map to new A grade?

Womble

I meant, "what is the relevance of the education choices of Labour Party (or their parents) to this debate which is essentially about individuals' views on the fairness of a tax break?"

And I stand by that question.

TIENSJEMESENSTOUTFEMI... - the science/maths A'levels that I did (yes a long time ago) were much more in depth than the BAC for sure. I think that is still the case. Two senior masters from two well known private schools mentioned as well at open days

I know someone who did maths/further maths etc at A'levels and didn't lift a finger at MIT undergraduate Physics for a year and a half. A'levels might not be universal but they are/used to be a very decent standard.

I think a lot of public schools do deserve charitable status. Taking a local (and very famous) school for an example -

• They hold regular days for local people, especially school children from classified deprived areas, to use their facilites, such as their theatre, grounds, sports pitches, swimming pool.

• They allow local theatre groups the use of their brilliant theatrical equiptment and stage during the holidays.

• They do performaces to raise money for other charities.

• They offer partial and full scholorships for local individuals.

I was awarded a full scholorship which I was unfortunately unable to complete because of my health. However, I greatly felt the benifits going to me, and the other girls who were awarded equal and slightly less scholorhsips.

Some schools - those that do not do enough to contribute to the communities - do not deserve charitable status, maybe, but I do think its very unreasonable to say that none of them do.

"Make your choice, pay for it if necessary, deal with it" doesn't really cover it - for some (Most) there is no "choice". "Have the choice forced on you" would be more apt.

Some private school parents make the mistake of thinking that, because they are in the privileged position of having made a (financially-guaranteed) choice, everyone else must also have "chosen" their school too.

good point UQD.