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 don't buy the idea that being an "educated middle-class professional" and a caring parent with lots of books at home somehow buys my children an unfair advantage in the same way as bunging a school a few thousand quid a term would. I just don't - sorry.

Scienceteacher people pay for education in order to buy privilege for their DC. As Unquietdad asserts, the notion that the only way of getting your DC a good education is to buy it is ludicrous - the educational standard of many private schools is below that of a good state comp but parents hope that the very fact of going private will be enough and that all will win prizes.

I value education extremely highly - to the extent that I know it doesn't only refer to set subjects and good exam grades. My state comp certainly helped me attain the latter; my years there also ensured I don't take anything for granted, nurtured a sense of social awareness and sensitivity which no private school could offer and prepared me for life in a world where people from all backgrounds need to mix and work constructively together.

My DD will start in a very similar community comp in September. Bright students are challenged and less able students are given the time and attention to reach their full potential - whether their parents are highly-paid professionals or single parents on benefits. I'm not sending her into a social experiment; just into a school which reflects the community in its widest sense.

Having read shigella's post, and agreeing with the first part about reducing the importance of academic acheivement as a measure of success, I do think it is important to remember the different connotations of the words private and independent.

Private implies exclusivity, independent refers to independence from state control. Two very different intents . . .

shigella, the funding might drop for a particular school, but that money still stays in the system to get redirected. And you haven't addressed the scenario where the place I may leave would be available for someone else.

I actually don't understand specifically how the "funding per student" system works. It seems to me that there would be little actual difference in having funding based on 25 students or 30 students, but a world of difference in classroom management and teacher attention.

No, I see that UQD. But it does give them an advantage in life, of course it does. Just as my children are similarly advantaged.

My point is that the advantages the middle classes have create an inequality in society, and it doesn't follow that the children in poverty - who struggle to access a good education - are going to be better off because we abolish private schools.

I would argue that the gradations of wealth and advantage are not that great within the middle classes - however they chose, or don't chose - to educate their children. If I send mine private, you send yours state - I v. much doubt they will come out with wildly different qualifications. I also doubt they will come out as markedly different people actually.

Why pay then? I can afford it, I like the school, it's not a waste of money because I like their ethos, attitude, style of teaching. I don't think they will come out the other end better advantaged than your dds though.

Funding per student - the number of children in the school is assessed once a year on a particular day. That number determines the funding for the school. If the number has dropped the funding will drop; if it drops too much the school will have to reduce the number of teachers. This is how it has affected our village primary - it had 5 classes when DD started but now only has 4, as can't afford 5 teachers.

english, where does the money go? does it leave the education system and get applied to healthcare, or do they use it to hire a teacher in a full school to lower the class numbers?

I think we are fortunate where we live to have very few choices in secondary schooling. This lack of choice means that virtually everyone has to use the local two comprehensives, which in turn means that there is a huge cross section of kids and parents involved in the school. For every disinterested , uninvolved parent there is another who gets involved, is interested. The consequence appears, happily, to be two fine - not outstanding - but perfectly acceptable schools. The only alternative is a very expensive private school 20 mins away. There are no grammars or other selective or faith secondary schools anywhere near our town. On the other hand, my sisters children are in Windsor where the array of schooling at 11 is staggering. The sheer amount of grammar, faith and private schools does seem to result in the most able or the not so able but able to pay being creamed off leaving the state schools as a place for the less able or less able to pay. would you not think that if the selective state schools (at the very least) did not exist, then the state schools in that area would have a higher proportion of able pupils, involved families etc, thus raising standards in state schools. Surely if all state schools did have good standards then people would use them because why otherwise pay money. Saying that, our local primary is outstanding and people still pay a lot to send their kids to the local prep school instead. In fact a lot of primaries here are outstanding. Why do people pay so much for the prep instead of the local option.

UQD - Saying "some of us can't find a spare £20K down the back of the sofa" is as insulting as suggesting people might find the school fees if they cut down on Sky TV.

Most of the people I know in real life who use state schools are disappointed and some of them are very angry indeed. It's rare to find someone who feels their child is receiving an education as good as the one they received themselves, courtesy of the state.

The truth is, you can piss around with charity status and you can piss around with trying to make universities favour state school pupils, but until state schools sort themselves out and are returned to their former glory, those who can afford it are going to go elsewhere.

In my day, the bright children went to the grammar school (rich and poor and in-between), and the not so bright went to the secondary modern (and a few rich but not so bright kids went off to fee payers if they didn't get into the grammar school - so at least back then noone had to go to school with thick rich kids). There was a lot of hostility between the two state schools. And bright children were sometimes missed. I don't think anyone felt guilty about going to the grammar though; there was a certain pride attached to going there. Parents would proudly tell people in the street that Johnny was off to the grammar school in Sept knowing full well they had kids at the sec modern. And the poor families were the worst actually. I think back now and cringe really. So I don't think the hard feelings are actually about money, not really.

ahundred, your observation that very few people responded to the post on how to improve state schools, yet there being a huge response to removing charitable status from independent schools, undermines any claims suggested by the stakeholder society argument.

Getting back to the OP a moment.

At the time most private schools were set up, charitable status was not unreasonable given the circumstances and requirements then.

However, at this point in history, for some it is an anachronism. They are not charities but non-profit organisations doing a good job for their users. They are providing a service that some people value and are fortunate enough to be able to afford.

The problem is the way the govt/charity commission is dealing with it. The rules have changed but they are tying the schools in knots so that they can't readily relinquish charitable status, and the alternative is often not going to be feasible either.

Zazizoma, I'm sorry but I don't know - the local authority has it but I don't know what they spend it on.

Ermintrude13 - your community comp sounds excellent. You are lucky!

mackerel, your scenario you shared is very thought provoking. I have some follow on questions. What is meant by raising standards? Higher GCSE results overall? Was there any increase in the measured success of children from "uninvolved" families? Or did the "uninvolved" children remain as they were, and the "involved" children carry on?

grimma, is the a legal structure for tax-exempt non-profit in the UK without calling it a charity?

zaz - sorry,I don't know.

Well no one has told me why abolishing private schools would be such a bad thing? Evidence that it wouldn't necessarily be that bad:

1)How come Cuban is one of the best educated populations in the world?

2)I actually lived many years in a country where the govt nationalised the private schools. Even though some of the jesuits who taught at those private schools left the schools continued to thrive and A'level results (we did UK A'levels nationally) continued to improve. My sense was that the former private schools gradually becaame more inclusive. Entrance was based on the Comm Entrance exam.

However, the schools were paid for out of general taxations so, initially the well off priobably benefited from this change disproportinately. But I think that over the long term it helped social cohesion as many friendships were made across economic classes. I had less well off friend who used to live in effectively a B&B (from a diff town) and many nights he stayed over at our house as we prepared for A'levls.

I am a private school payer for all 3DCs but I wish could have a more balanced debate about the subject. And I wish that PS parents weren't demonised for trying to do the best for their kids.

I would like to see more (partial) selection and streaming in the state sector. I know inner city teachers who tell me how that would lift stds in their schools. I wouldn't mind sending mine to state schools if we all did so as there is a nagging doubt that in my mind that some other kids would be benefitting from smaller class sizes and strong peer group etc. That is why i send them to PS even though I appreciate the ideological reasons for sending them to state schools.

TDiddy - That sounds a bit like being in favour of heavier taxes but wanting to keep your own taxes to a minimum.

TDiddy - Nationalising private schools would be great provided this doesn't mean that the state curriculum becomes the only option. The issue for me isn't about paying fees or not paying fees, rather independence from a state-mandated curriculum. In your scenario 2) were there still a variety of educational philosophies to chose from, just all funded by the state?

With regards to Cuba, I suspect that after a long spate of communism, you were looking at a relatively homogenous population culturally and economically, especially as compared to the UK. Much like Iceland, which allegedly has the highest literacy rate. it is much easier to teach in those situations, though diversity certainly has benefits along with challenges.

I'm not sure anyone does think it'd be a bad thing probably. Not in principle.. Perhaps that's why? If you could get for free what you pay for, then most people would take that I'd have thought?

The system you outline is still rife with inequality. Selection is, I suppose.

Where did you use to live? It's an interesting point.

The swedes have the voucher system don't they? I think in the netherlands the schools are maintained by the state, but run independently and have their own curriculum etc - though think there is a strong religious affiliation involved, which I could do without.

What country has got this right? Let's copy them.

TDiddy - I'm curious to know how the nationalization process worked. Did each school essentially continue with the same staff and ethos as before, the only difference being that any child could apply to enter because the funding was all from the govt? If not, what?

zazi, I'll do my best. At the school i was talking about where all DCs will go, it seems that all pupils achieve above the average and very few leave with no qualifications. It seems that less able kids achieve above what would be expected and that very able pupils are challenged. Poss. the middle range could do with more pusing - which if my child falls into that category I can do. Music opps. are amazing and the sport is fantastic. It has v. large grounds and all weather pitches. what i really like too is that it is a community college in the widest sense of the word and i am pleased that my DC will go to a school that is at the centre of the community and he'll go there with all his friends who live locally. It is not perfect but i am happy to send my children there. There may be no corelation bet. the lack of choice in secondary schooling in our area and the fact that the 2 comps. are good enough schools. I wonder how many places in the uk are in our position.

thanks mackerel! How big is the school, ie what is your average class size?

zazizoma - the other country that i referred to above had a verey heterogenous population! The resultant tops schools were very very diverse (ecomonically, racially, etc) including expats. I think the key there was the selection/streaming. That way the teachers were just able to get on with it. Less well off kids burned the mid might oil to get into the better schools.

Thanks TDiddy, was the curriculum the same in all the schools?