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?

Think private schools should have charitable status, or at least non profit status. Can't think of any school that has raised fees, for instance, for the sake of a staff bonus or any financial incentive personally.

Would be interesting though if Eton got academy status like several private schools in Bristol so would still be selective, but no fees.

And you should all be grateful to me for not having a fourth child; for that child would surely be delivered my an NHS midwife, and would receive a state education.

Maybe, you should be only allowed to have two children educated by the state. Anyone having three or more children would have to have them privately educated, or home educate. Now there's an idea.

I have six children. Two of them were born outside the NHS (no NHS care in pregnancy either). They are all educated privately.

You are nothing special, LS.

Oh, and DH pays a boat load of taxes.

Funnily enough, when my parents were paying my school fee, they were doing it to relieve the state of the cost of my education. But maybe that's what my wannabe socialist mother told herself. Oh, how I'm laughing.

I'm very cross that no-one's taken the bait ...

No, I'm nothing special, just little old NHS/state school using me.

Oh, the irony that people who pay the largest amount of tax, are the ones who can also afford private school fees.

Who the hell thought up this system?

Beenbeta - your not paying for the Latin teacher to teach in a state school. You are paying for your son to attend a private school where that teacher teaches. If you don't like the schools pr programme, you can always complain or move your son....

On charitable status - if the charitable act us providing education at no cost to the taxpayer, then surely the charitable act is on the part of the parent not the school?

Probably the schools should not have charitable status - but really, for the sums of money involved, it's probably not worth pissing people off. It is a pretty trivial issue really, up their with fox hunting in the list of things we should have better things to do than worry about.

Every cost of a private school is passed ont the parents.

As for the implications of not having charitable status, it would mean that VAT would be added to school fees, therefore paid by parents. The school itself wouldn't have to pay tax because they don't actually make any profit.

Ah, so it's all to avoid paying VAT. Now I understand!

TheCoalition - if the Latin teacher is spending 50% of their time down the road at the state school and I am paying all the salary I definitely am paying for the teacher to teach in the state school.

SURELY?

Not unless you are paying the teacher directly. You are paying for a place at the school.

But it's theoretical...it's not actually happening.

State school children are going into the public school, and the public school teacher's time/the class room is being donated. No one parent is paying for that. The teacher would have probably just gone home and watched Countdown anyway.

Dorney lake isn't run by the borough but I do recall that when it was being built it was a partnership between the local council and Eton. Rather than Eton building it and paying for everything and deigning to allow others to use it. The planning application procedure for it was very strict.

Found something here. Gravel extraction paid for it and local use was one of the planning stipulations in allowing it to be built - I think there was a green belt issue to consider for the site which meant a lot of local objection.

The TVAC was funded by the National Lottery to the tune of £4.6m, not Eton although Eton donated the land.

I believe the land for TVAC was worth about £20m, and also that EC donate some of the capital costs (around £750k, iirc).

Lynette/TheCoalition - are you honestly pretending that teachers are happy to work unpaid. The fees I pay is what covers their salaries. This is insulting to teachers:

"The teacher would have probably just gone home and watched Countdown anyway."

They work a full day and that is it.

I dont pay for the 'right' to send my DSs to their school and then someone else pays the teacher salaries. I know this because I look at the accounts. In our DSs school £12.5m comes in and £1lm goes out in staff salary/pension/NI costs. Its right there on the accounts.

What you are proposing only works in a world of socialist economics where someone else always pays.

Yep, someone else always pays. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, as long as it doesn't affect my benefits.

MollieO - you may be right that it was not absolutely 100% paid for by Eton. However, the vast majority of it was. There was a delayed final stage due to them needing to fund it - I think the finishing tower needed to brink it up to Olympic standard was involved. The fact remains that Eton control it and they are therefore offering something that would normally have to be paid for, free. If it was a free-to-all facility and they were just pretending to be benevolent I think someone would have noticed before the article hit the papers!
You are right that several of the major regattas are held there - I don't know off the top of my head if that is something they have to pay for or simply an allowance made for special events. However for standard training, when a club wants to row there as opposed to on their home water, they have to pay for it. This payment is being waived for this school. Eton are not pretending to be giving them something that they could have for free as part of the community, I promise!

Teachers work a full day and that is it? Not the teachers I know.
Teachers put in a lot of hours out side of teaching time, with extra circular activities.

I'm not exactly sure how teachers are contracted in boarding schools, but they certainly put in a lot of time when they aren't actually teaching. When I was boarding teachers were often around when they didn't strictly need to be.

It's insulting to teachers to think they only work for the exact hours they are paid.

MmeBlueberry, are you saying state education is a benefit?

YANBU - it's just done to bolster their case for being a charity. Nothing against them being a private school but not sure why they should be a tax haven too.

BeenBeta - This has nothing to do with socialist economics. You pay the school to provide a service. That is all you are paying for. If this generates them a surplus, either in resources or cash they can do what they like with it.

Essentially, that 50% of the teachers time is the schools profit on the fees you pay. You don't want to tell companies what to do with their profits do you?