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.

Teins - I was not talking about the education choices of the labour party (although others have). Some one commented that privately educated children are running the country. I said I doubted they were as the Labour party is "running" the country and most of the labour MPs appear to have been educated in state schools.

Tony Blair was privately educated so I think it was a bit much that he scrapped assisted places. He did not want others to benefit from the educational priviledge he had.

wow our local posho does nothing for the local community, though maybe as that's cause we beat them at rugger

In my experience the local private schools have as little to do with "the community" as they possibly can - which is what the parents I know who use them seem to want. If they wanted a "community" school they'd have chosen a state one.

We do make our choice and do get on with it.

While we may have a little whinge with fellow parents on the dinner party circuit, the majority of us feel that every penny is worth it. I have worked in (outstanding) state schools very recently, and nothing convicts me more to private education.

We have a discussion here about charitable status and most of us in the system think that it is right and proper for schools to be charities. Those outside the system may think otherwise. YMMV.

Apart from the relative anonymity of Mumsnet, we don't generally talk about school fees outside of the system.

Bleh. None should have charitable status. They undermine the state school system by their existence. Betadad says:

'Right for all those who so despise private schools. Lets see what would happen if they all shut tomorrow.

Most of the private school kids would just go down the road to the few remaining state grammar schools and compete for places in entrance exams with kids whose parents cannot afford private.

Alternatively, the parents of private school kids would take the fees they saved and use it to outbid the other poorer parents for houses in the catchement area of nice school. Many bright state school kids would be pushed out of good state schools as a result and end up in failing state schools. Not a good outcome for anyone.
'

Well the next sentence is missing. I'd suggest: then, if everyone's in the same boat, everyone looks after it or sinks. Volunteering in school, engaging with other parents more, political pressure on govt, campaign pressure on local councils'.

Yours, from Hampstead way, waving a champagne glass.

There are no grammar schools in our city, and there is a surplus of places in many schools. Tumbleweeds blow down corridors, and desks stand empty. No trouble fitting them all in.

yanbu at all! private schools have as much right to charitable status as any other business: none! The fact that they occassionally let the poor kids from down the road dip their toes in their swimming pool is neither here nor there, they are businesses set up to make a profit for their owners...not only that but they are also socially divisive, often creaming off the wealthy / more supported kids, who lets face it are often the same ones, out of the local comps, meaning that the local comps become seen as sink schools that no one will sned their kids to.
toffee nosed toffs absolutely do NOT deserve to be deemed charities and should be taxed until they are on their knees.
see you at the revolution!

umm, so PSCMUM, are you saying the independent schools make a profit that are then passed onto shareholders or owners? Isn't this against charity commission regulations?

Not everywhere though UQD eg boring old London. FWIW I think everyone should be able to use the state system and I also disagree with faith schools (selection being unfair generally) but I would not support a revolution whereby all the private schools closed and I would rather have a private system with slightly more inclusive outlook which is forced to offer some means-tested bursaries and receive charitable status thereby than to only have private schools for the family of Fred Goodwin and various Russians etc.

There are a lot of dodgy charities the charities commissions should investigate, the attack on private schools is pure politics and not actually rational IMHO.

profts or salaries, whatever way you want to dress it up, they are not running these shcools out of the goodness of their hearts!

hmmm....swedes...if your son is intelligent and driven and focussed, he could have gone to any school and succeed...

my sil was not privately educated, but intelligent enough to go to a Cambridge University and is doing verrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy well, being headhunted all over the place, etc...she is inteligent, driven and has fantastic communication and managerial skills and she also got vision.
So in my opinion , if you are clever you going to do well...

pcsmum - private schools with charitable status do not make a profit for any person as far as I know. The teachers including the head just receive their salaries.

The cognita group makes a profit for share holders but has opted out of charitable status I believe.

most private schools around here only offer bursaries to kids that are already IN school. so that doesn't really widen access, because someone who can't or can barely afford it is hardly going to take the chance.

the charitable status and associated tax breaks is a bit of a joke. in the london borough where i live there are more than 100 children without a place in reception for September, and the local prep schools have refused to let out part of their vast premises to accommodate extra classes (all paid for by the council, so they would have actually made money). if that is not uncharitable, then i don't know what is(n't).

of course this always turns out nasty on MN because for some reason fee paying parents cannot accept that they are buying their children a privilege in whatever shape or form and get all hot under the collar at the suggestion. bah.

The Cats Protection League has charitable status. Not everyone wants public money spent on protecting cats.

Even if you don't use private schools you are benefitting from fewer people in the state sector. If there were no private schools maybe class sizes would go up to 40?

Education is for the public good so I am happy for all schools state and private to have charitable status..I notice both private and state schools have featured in the Waitrose charity token box things recently..although I would always give my token to charities for children with disabilities or illnesses over a school or the cats protection league..there are plenty of crotchety old ladies to look after the cats and horses!

I do not educate privately but most charities are not august and worthy institutions like the NSPCC. They are specialist interest groups (Flower Arranging Societies) , for the benefit of animals (Bees Abroad, anyone?) and the esoteric (Hare Krishna Centre for Vedic Studies). I would say that private schools represent a broader public benefit than most of these.

If these are seen as having public benefit, why not rich kids too? They are still kids after all and are rich through no fault of their own.

Melliflous - I love your post. I wish I'd written it.

I don't buy the "if there were no private schools maybe class sizes would go up to 40" argument. Good schools are stuffed but many Local Authorities as a whole have surplus places. They have schools they can't fill and are having to close them. (I realise London is a law unto itself in this respect.)

Swedes, the cat thing I think can be answered by my point earlier, namely that you expect a charity to have a "vulnerable" group or a group in "need". For Age Concern it's older people, for Save The Children it's neglected and exploited and poor children, and for Cats' Protection (I think they have dropped the "League" bit these days) it's stray, unwanted or homeless cats.

Who are the "needy" group provided for by private schools? If their funds went entirely towards the education of children from under-privileged and education-deprived backgrounds, I would totally buy it. But they don't. Quite the opposite, usually.

there are no good state schools with spare places where I live UQD. If a place ever comes up at DS school it is filled from the waiting list.

the scools in your area, or the schools you would chose

But any cat at all can be helped by the League if in need. Therein lies the ginormous difference.

I don't think we can really embrace the argument that private schools are providing some kind of service to the state, by freeing up 7% of the places which would otherwise be taken. That's just a convenient offshoot - not their raison d'être.

A Local Authority has a duty of care to school all the children resident in its boundaries. A state system which everyone had to use would (ideally) create a far greater sense of cohesion and we wouldn't be having these "them and us" type conversations. Yes, yes, cloud-cuckoo land. But we've tried the other way and it isn't working. How about trying it this way?

I would say that all children are needy and vulnerable.

Many rich parents cannot provide the time, support and stability their children need. They are just too busy with their brain surgery or whatever less worthy work they do.

The schools do step in with pastoral care. You couldn't get that in a State school.

But that isn't just true of rich parents. What do the poor parents get?...