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.

I should say that social cohesion probably did improve in that country but hard to measure

I thought the VAT breaks (if taken away) would cost around £1k a year in terms of increase in school fees. Still less than taking up a state school place.

The additional VAT costs would be less of a hit than funding 1/5 of the entry to have free places - unless attending a very well endowed school.

If private schools having charitable status gets your hackles up, this should get your blood boiling...

Are you aware that the UK's largest private hospital - The London Clinic - frequented by the rich and famous, is a charity?

Now that's a scandal because how that place will ever be able to demonstrate that it meets the public benefit test (which incidentially is an ongoing test for all charities, not just new charities seeking registration)is totally beyond me!

The London Clinic

Will Cameron introduce vouchers? Or will he not have the funds to do so as it will cost taxpayers money to do?

More proof that PS parents are the subsiders and not the subsidized.

I tend to vote centre-left despite the private school. However, I can look forward to Cameron giving us all education vouchers to spend. There is some .. hmmm

I think many of those arguing on this thread are too polarised. fact is there are problems with the existing system which isn't the PS parents' fault nor of their making. Apart from a few shallow snobs most of us are trying to do the best for Johnny whether we send child to state or private.

I've never met a shallow snob at private school, they either keep their opinions to themselves or else they aren't there.
Now state schools is an entirely different matter, my brothers wife has cried coming back from the school run after over hearing comments about her arse/dress sense/car

1)The argument gets further polarised when people refuse to acknowledge that PS parents are paying three times:
-taxes for state education
-private fees
-to fund charitable places

2)UQD hinted at problems with social cohesion that are difficult to quantify/measure. Nonetheless he has valid points. Cuba is one of the best educated nations and they don't have private schools. Moscow institue of Tech (i think that is the name) had some of the best scientist in the world.

3)I also wished that more PSs were mixed.

I think that you have to either abolish PS or go for the voucher system to create a more fluid education system but even then you will have other problems/unintended consequences.

some more innovation is required but people are too stuck in useless ideological battles. Introduce a small element of selection and or streaming and you would be surprised what you could do with a state school.

Watford Grammar only selects 15pc approx or so and takes the rest from its inner catchment. Check out how many of their kids go to top unis including oxbridge and medicine. Their results are much better than many private schools!

I hate some of the polarised private vs state arguments because it is so loaded with class connatations and it is the kids who lose out from the lack of progressive and innovative reform

connotations connatations

Its taken me all bloody day to read this thread and I have been, in turns, amused, horrified, impressed, fascinated and stunned (mainly at some people's "i'm ok sod the rest of you" attitudes).

I would like to say a hearty congrats to UQD, hatwoman and MIFLAW (in the early stages the debate) for so eloquently reminding me of all the issues I have with private schools.

I find the arguments that a child deserves to suffer a substandard education because their parents didn't plan their careers to enable school fees to be paid, despicable quite frankly. You do remember that this is children we're talking about don't you?

And by the way I don't think the state provides a substandard education in the vast majority of cases but those sending their kids to private school obviously do otherwise why would you bother?

And as for the 'oh poor me, we can't afford anything because we're sending our children to an expensive school' well my heart bleeds. If it is that hard then save the money, send them to your local state school and spend more time, energy and money trying to improve it. Everyone agrees that an articulate and motivated group of parents can make a big difference to a school don't they? So why do so many of those who could make a difference take the, ultimately selfish, option of forking out the money every term? Is it laziness I wonder? Or just pessimism?

In fact, has anyone ever thought that part of the reason for declining standards at state schools (particularly in London) is that more people are choosing to spend money on education. Maybe its a self-fulfilling prophecy?

"energy and money trying to improve it"

And how exactly would you do that when everything you believe in is in conflict with the state education policy and is the reason for your choice of private schools success ?

Nobody is bleating about school fees and saying poor me, merely pointing out that it is an option for the masses, but they choose sky tv and 2 weeks in the sun instead, entirely up to them unless it's tax credits they are blowing ie my money then it pisses me off when their kids are receiving a sub standard education at the same time.

education is used by govts and parents as a tool in class war. There are obvious ways to innovate and improve education. If Cameron does win let's see whether he is brave enough

Back to illogicality again.

You are arguing that state schools do not provide a substandard education.

The corollory of that is that people who pay for education are wasting their money.

Well let them. It's no skin off your nose, is it? People waste money all the time. Our economy is founded on people wasting their money.

And this gem: "I find the arguments that a child deserves to suffer a substandard education because their parents didn't plan their careers to enable school fees to be paid, despicable quite frankly. You do remember that this is children we're talking about don't you?"

Hang on, you don't believe they are getting a substandard education. Breathtaking to be able to adopt two contrary positions.

But actually of course, nowhere did I say that anyone deserved a substandard education.

Sorry to post and run but I HAVE to go to bed! Also have to say I'm really not attacking individuals. In lots of ways I can understand people's reasons for sending their DC's to private school.

Its just that I disagree with it on a fundamental level.

I don't believe that the standard of a child's education should depend on how much money their parents have.

I know that this is simplistic and that lots of stuff in life isn't fair but it feels like a child's education is (or should be)different. I also think that in people's rush to defend their choices they come across as mean and selfish. Surely the level of vitriol could point to some level of guilt about the situation...

But I don't feel guilty. Not remotely. I don't begin to understand why you think I should feel guilty. Should parents who send their children to faith schools feel guilty? Should parents who send their children to selective state schools feel guilty? Should parents who move into a leafy suburb to enjoy better state schools feel guilty? Should parents who teach their children skills and manners feel guilty?

i don't feel guilty. I just think that we could all be better off if we had a bit more innovative education reform

We wouldn't be better off we'd find something else to spend it on, maybe another DC in our case

Actually, you are right, the PS parents might spend it on something else, and all of us would have to pay more tax to fund more state school places.

"Nobody is bleating about school fees and saying poor me, merely pointing out that it is an option for the masses, but they choose sky tv and 2 weeks in the sun instead"

Well no, quite a few parents on here are choosing feeding their children instead.

I disagree that, for a lot of parents, is IS a simple matter of priorities.

I don't think these sums work anyway. How much is two weeks in the sun? Am going to guess £1000 if you do it as a package holiday (as the masses tend to do). How much is sky tv? I have no bloody idea but am guessing about £200 pa?

Private school fees start at around £4000 pa ish, iirc.

This idea of the masses as unable to access private education because they are a bit feckless is rather insulting. There IS a strata of society that can afford private school fees with a bit of financial planning. But they are the minority.

at the idea that private education is an option for "the masses" to spend their TAX CREDITS on
hehe

If private schools were to lose their charitable status, surely the fees would rise still further? As a result people who are already struggling to meet these fees would be forced out - thereby putting yet more pressure on the state system which would impact on everybody!

Filly, so what about the masses? Why is that an important part of the debate?

"Filly, so what about the masses? Why is that an important part of the debate?"

Are you serious?

This "oh we need private schools because the state schools are so crap" argument doesn't work for me either.

If everyone, rich and poor, had to send their kids to the local schools, I think we'd find the local schools improved significantly. I think we'd find money was found for school improvements.

Filly we spend around £600 for a holiday and have two DC. I wish I knew where the rest of the £20,000 we're fecklessly spending on rent crap has gone. Sky TV must be bloody expensive