To think that Eton is being a bit cynical in offering to share some of its sports facilities with the local state academy?

[Shinyshoegirl]

Today's paper reports that Eton is offering free use of some of its 27 cricket pitches and its Olympic standard rowing lake to a local state school. Surely if they were really concerned about helping educational achievement for all they might consider sharing some of their teaching resources instead? I've nothing against cricket and rowing, but it seems like a token gesture towards their charitable responsibilities. Or am I being unreasonably cynical?

Can anyone explain to me why I should pay for the Latn teacher at DSs school to teach in a state school if I pay tax and also my DSs school fees?

The state does not pay a penny to my DSs education and I really would not mind if my DSs latin teacher say was shared 50:50 with the local state school(s) if the state paid 50% of his/her salary or gave me a refund via a voucher equal to 50% of his/her salary.

I dont mind paying for DSs schooling twice via tax and fees but paying for a teacher on top of that to not teach my DSs and teach someone elses in a state school instead is a bit much.

I think it is fairly common for public school students, eg sixth formers, to do some outreach work in state schools - helping out with maths, English and MFLs, particularly, and also with sport.

State schools get plenty of money to employ their own teachers, so it is silly to expect private school teachers to do their job for free, as well as giving the message that the state school teachers are somehow not good enough.

Eton does do some teaching of state school pupils in their summer schools, but there are fees charged for these (bursaries available).

Not sure the local state school would be very interested in Eton teaching. Very different methodology and very different clientele. Not a good idea and I suspect the state school wouldn't want it - Eton borrowing the state school teachers might be a better idea

Private schools often have to share their facilities with the public in order to retain their charitable status.

It's not cynical. It's business.

Has someone suggested that private school teachers go to teach in state schools? What an odd idea. I don't see any benefit in that for anyone.

BeenBeta, the the children from my DC's school go to the independent school, rather than the teacher coming to them. It's an after school club if you like, on top of the maths teaching they have already had in school.

Students from the public school do go into the state school though, and help the children with Latin/Philosophy. They are also present during the after school teaching to help out. I guess to a certain extent, it's voluntary....the school is desperately trying to keep it's charity status. Handing out a few scholarships to local children just doesn't seem to cut it these day.

I find your attitude hilarious.Do you really think teachers from a top public school are not teaching their pupils, and are instead concentrating on the local oiks?

Can someone tell me why public schools should be charities, at all?

It goes back to old laws about having educational benefits or some such thing. Of course, they shouldn't have charitable status. But since they do, it makes sense that private schools work hard at keeping it.

Actually, a few bursaries are enough to maintain charitable status. My school does not have many facilities to speak of. We do allow a community group to use our hall a few times a year, but they have to pay for the caretaker's time.

We are not well endowed, and our scholarships are more for marketing rather than anything to do with charitable status.

Most independent schools do have charitable status because they always have and it is not something that can be easily removed. In addition, their property is often subject to restrictive covenants.

Most schools have always done charitable work, and continue to do so. The only difference now is that there is bureaucracy.

I don't think Wikipedia is correct. From memory Eton provided the land and some of the financing but not all hence the reason it is open to the public every day.

Don't forget Thames Valley Athletics Centre a fantastic facility for the wholw community run by Slough Council on Eton land.

To quote "Eton?s athletics are based at the Thames Valley Athletics Centre (TVAC), which is a regional athletics centre developed by the two local boroughs on the College?s former athletics track. Under this exemplary partnership between an independent school and the community, the centre is now shared by local clubs and other users with Eton"
.

Lots of state schools in this area offer rowing it isn't just limited to the private schools.

Lynette - they have charitable status because they relieve the state of the burden of paying for the teaching of children that are in them.

I did not say 'oik' - you did. That is not my attitude. I have already said that I would like children in the local area to take advantage of the facilities (which are held in a charitable trust) that my school has. I am also quite happy to share teachers as long as the state pays the marginal cost of employing them.

The site is open to the public but people can't just rock up and use the lake or gym ot changing facilities for free. It is use of the lake and associated facilities for rowing that they are offering and that would normally come at a cost. If they are also offering use of their equipment, and possibly staff, that is a valuable package they are giving to the state school.
Trust me - I used to train there with a rowing club. It's a few pounds per rower per session.

A lot of local rowing clubs have their regattas there. Although both Maidenhead and Marlow still appear to do training on the Thames.

YANBU. I don't think private schools should have charitable status. A charity is an organisation that invests all its income into good works - RSPCA, RNIB, etc. Private schools should not receive charitable status as they re-inforce divisions in society, which is not 'good works' imo. This type of gesture is a token gesture - they do it only because they have to. If they didn't, their fees would increase dramatically and it's likely many would go out of business. So, I'm as cynical as you are.

DS's school doesn't have charitable status and the fees are no higher than other local private schools. In fact they are less.

So why don't private hospitals have charitable status? Or do they?

"Reliving the state of the burden" I've heard it all now.

I think TVAC might have been what Mollie was thinking of when she said it was run by the borough.

Eton is not a business. It is not trading with a view to making a profit. The vast vast majority of independent schools are not-for-profit institutions.

effjay,

Education is considered a charitable act in this country.

Educating 650,000 children free of taxpayers' expense is extremely charitable. Taxpayers should be grateful.

Yes, like they should be grateful to mothers who choose to have private c-sections.

Why not?

Oh, and don't forget the 80,00 children who are home educated. Taxpayers should be extremely grateful to them too!

It's time really that independent schools rethought this whole charitable status thing.

As previously explained, independent schools do not pay corporation or income tax because they are not trading with a view to profit. All that charitable status confers, by way of benefit, is that they can reclaim their input VAT. It isn't a significant amount per pupil, maybe £1k each.

And really, when you think about allowing all the unwashed locals onto the premises, wouldn't you rather pay the premium to avoid your children having to have any form of social contact with undesirables?

Discuss

The state school parents and other tax payers are very very lucky so many of us work incredib ly hard as mothers to ensure we can relive the state of the cost of educating our children (in my case 5 children from 3 - 18 = 75 years of state education which I think costs the state £5k a year).

Educating others is a good thing so for hundreds of years it has been regarded as charitable. Very very few of the better private schools make money for shareholders. The vast majority do not make profits in that sense, most of their costs are teacher wages and any surplus goes back into the school. So good are our private schools that they are admired the world over and indeed exported. It is one of our great national successes of which I'd hope all parents should be proud even where a mother has chosen such low paid a career that she cannot afford fees.