AIBU in thinking that tax-payers shouldn't fund private schools?

[larks35]

Several private schools in my area are going for Academy status, which will bring them public money, while they can still continue to be selective and charge parents for their child's education.

This is an absolute travesty IMO. I always hated the Academy idea, but the Labour government thought it would help out schools in deprived areas. Now, the Tory/Lib govt. are actively encouraging private schools to take up the status and therefore, those of us who cannot afford to send our kids to the lovely private school up the road are contributing to their funding. Grrrr, it is pissing me off.

Cramming only make a sufficient difference to those who would get borderline results. The vast majority of 11-plus entrants would end up in the school most suitable to them, grammar or not, regardless of parental income. A flexible system would also allow a later swap to the grammar if appropriate.

This surely has to be fairer than any of the money-based options, including private schools and comprehensive education where the more successful schools are in the wealthier areas, so it all depends on where your parents can afford to live.

should have said "would only make"

trixie

1, Donkeys, generally do not have high earning parents.

2, I left the state education system with an excellent grounding in all of those subjects (except further maths!). One of them, I have even taught - in a state-funded setting

"The definition of a charity (for tax purposes) is something that benefits society."
I don't think it is, you know.

It may take a year - but it could start tomorrow. The important thing is to change the admissions procedures.

The grammar school thing - in my experience it the places go to bright middle class children - the clever children from poor/disavantaged/working class families haven't a hope.

I could argue that private education is actively detrimental to society.....

Stuck - well done, especially on the physics! It is true though that these subjects are floundering now - maybe not the case a few years ago -, physics in particular is in a dire state with a dearth of specialist teachers able to carry it to A level and this is of course self perpetuating.

The donkeys need charity because they do not, as you say have high earning parents but the idea of these schools being charitable is that the pupils they educate go on to contribute to society (and I am not for a second suggesting that state educated ones don't) and that because of their independence they are able to accommodate a wider range of interests, specialisms etc. The fact that the parents are usually wealthy doesn't mean that the pupils don't "deserve" this education and obviously the bursary / scholarship issue helps also. All children deserve an excellent education, I just don't think abolishing the private sector is the way to achieve that.

Many people pay taxes towards things they have no need for or choose not to use. But that is different to paying towards things they are excluded from using.

I'm not talking about abolishing the private sector. Far from it, I think that private schools should be treated like companies and taxed accordingly.

One point. Why have you brought up the "contributing to society" issue?

I don't see what the relevence is, unless you are implying that they contribute more than state school educated kids?

I'm sorry to say that I have never taught physics though.

Religious schools are part funded by the religious insitution so they would not be shut down or told they could not teach religion.

Might get their funding cut though so forced to go private.

I went to a grammar - there were many people from many different backgrounds - back then.

11+ was something that we all did - you were entered and if it wasn't deemed appropriate for you (teachers never said a word - it was your parents' view) it was your parents' decision to opt you out.

But nowadays the grammars seem to be served by a few primaries in wealthier areas.

The reason they qualify for charitable status is that education is classed a charitable aim. And is obviously historical - many private schools were originally set up to educate children whose parents couldn't afford governesses (or to send them away to live in the Duke of somewhere's household as a page boy).

In fact, educating the privileged few isn't really a charitable aim in the eyes of most people, I suspect, even if there are a few scholarships for kids from families that can't afford full fees.

Btw, re. grammar schools - afraid the stats show pretty consistently they only take a small minority of working class kids. Today tutoring must be a factor. Back in the day, even if working class kids did pass the 11+ often their parents couldn't afford the uniform.

Just a few comments on the charity status, most prep schools I know open their doors to local state schools on a regular basis to give them access to facilities and services. Scholarships and burseries are also offered across the board and these student are genuinely welcomed into the community.
As I understand it the regulations for the chaity status are becoming tighter. In response ours have set up a foundation to provide more bursaries and more assistance to local schools.
Parents have been asked to donate to this in addition to school fees and most have.
I don't think anyone would seriously expect to have a %tax back for funding state education.
To my mind it seems to have been suggested in retaliation to the comments on state money funding "private" academies.
I haven't seen anyone answer my,or the pp questions on how banning private schooling could benefit society.
Oh and unquietdad, yes we make sacrifices, and work bloody hard but I would never suggest that we're on minimum wage, or that anyone could privately educate their children (nor have I seen anyone else on mn suggest that - but maybe they have?).
We have been able to do so on a pure mix of luck, hardwork and sacrifice.
Surely we can just live and let live.

Edam, our bursaries are on a sliding scale.
A friend whose child goes to another local prep school obtained a 95% bursary as they simply could not afford anymore and their son was bright and obtained a scholarship. They are most definately working class.
A full kit of uniform (new) in our school is about 350, whereas a 2nd hand set will cost about 75.
I know I kep referring to ours and I don't mean to hold it up on a pedastal there are many things I don't like but it does a great job IMO and I don't think it is that different to many others that I also have experience of.

I brought up the contributing to society thing because it is one of the defining characteristics of an organisation that can claim charitable status. I was in no way implying that they contribute more, in fact I took specific time to say I was not saying that (IYSWIM) but I think it would be churlish to suggest they contribute nothing.

The reason why taxing them as companies might be unfair is that (as I also previously said), they do not in any way "pocket" the profits but plough it all back in. The revenue lost to the Treasury from private schools' charitable status is far far far less than they "save" by not having to pay for those children in the state sector. The figures from the Time Online state that the Charitable status "cost" the Treasury £800 million. The "saving" of fee paying students not taking up their state places is £3 billion.

I don't think we want to rely on the independant sector to support those subjects. Instead we need to find ways to reinforce them in the state system. Economics, Physics and Philosophy should be core curriculum.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou - I would wholeheartedly agree with you but what would you jettison to make room for them? Also you can't magic up teachers who are qualified to teach them. Philosophy might be ok (lots of philosophy grads out there!) Economists and Physicists tend to find more lucrative things to do!

Private schools could cope with losing charitable status. Remember 98% of them make no p[rofits so they have no profit to tax. So the only difference would be that parents pay 17.5% VAT on the fees if VAT were imposed on those fees . They could then reclaim the VAT they pay on things they buy for the school.

We could also ditch all the bursary applciatns, having all the yobbos in at weekends to "share facilities" and ensure private schools in fact were improved. So abolish charitable status and in fact you increase divides which may not be a bad thing. Elites can be good. Tony Blaire had a great private education. Ms Abbott's son is at City and we know where some of the cabinet went. It's thanks to their marvellous schools the country benefits so much.

Anyway we have to remember the biggest divide is within the state sector and there is no movement to abolish existing grammars, there is no feeling that state religious schools should go, there is no desire to get rid of academies and no big feeling in the country that we should bus children from leafy bucks into Hackney every day to sink schools to achieve equality so it's all a fairly pointless thread.

My only practical suggestion is that those women who think it's unfair some women earn enough to fund school places get out there and earn enough to buy a good education for their children. Be entrepreneurial, have ideas, work twice as hard as others. I promise you it's fun and in return your children get a good education.

Lots of companies plough their profits back in to the business. I suppose you are arguing that private schools are akin to social enterprise, in some way?

It's good that the new charity regulations lead to schools opening the doors a bit wider and making facilities available to state schools. But it's not a complete answer to the tax breaks, is it? Actually was thinking of a comparison to historic houses but realise I don't actually know anything about charitable status/support for stately homes. Not being an aristocrat or City banker! Don't the Devonshires and other families have charitable trusts or something to look after the grand houses like Chastworth these days though? Vaguely recall places like that are often owned by a trust on behalf of the family rather than the sole proprietor and owner being one Peregrine, Duke of Devonshire. Or something like that.

@ Xenia but feel you are being a bit previous about the wonderful new government. Let's see if these ex-public schoolboys actually DO anything at all useful before celebrating the return of the traditional ruling classes to political power, shall we?

You don't need a physics PHd to teach GCSE or even A-level Physics - let alone earlier on in education. I imagine the same is true of Economics. These are NOT especially hard subjects and we need to stop pretending they are - this is basic how stuff works knowledge.

Economics is already part of other subjects - History, Political geography and RE are all (too an economist) Economics in disguise - and certainly you need basic Economic knowledge to understand them.

Physics is part of Science - that's still part of the curriculum surely?

And Philosophy is the basic underpinning of all knowledge so take a bit off each other subject to make room for it.

There were enough of the labour lot educated in the private sector so it's not a massive change but Conservatives are always better for Britain so it can only be good.

(On teachers in private schools and qualifications I was trying to find you a teacher list - my children's schools despite being private or in fact because they are, have always had well qualified teachers. I just found a prospectus for one - my older children have left school so not a problem to disclose it www.nlcs.org.uk/uploads/1/NLCS_Prospectus_2009_Web_2.pdf Good private schools always do - more chance the teacher has a degree in their subject than in the state sector - although there are bad private schools too)

Xenia

"The Conservatives are always better for Britain"???

Only if you earn above a certain level.

"there is no feeling that state religious schools should go, there is no desire to get rid of academies"

See my earlier posts on both of these subjects. I'm of course assuming that you understand the effects on society of large economic and social divsions?

Trixie

You appear to be taking a Thatcherite stance along the lines of "not adding to the que" regarding private education. Should private hospitals also be given charity status?

I'm going to get flamed to hell for this... but I work with (and often train) many new grads. Some from state schools, some from the independants... The kids from the "posh" schools are no better. No real bloody difference in ability or knowledge or willingness to learn.

All you are paying for is social isolation. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If your child is bright and works hard, they'll make it with a state education.

What the "posh" kids have is the contacts their parents and parents of their friends can provide - the old boys club if you will. They also obviously have greater financial support so are more able to do voluntary work or unpaid internships.

Ideally, I want the class system in this country broken up and a true meritocracy nutured in its place.

Oh, it is a massive change in the proportion of our dear rulers who not only come from public schools but from the very top of the pile. No mere Rugby for our current cabinet!

I don't care whether my children's primary teachers have a degree in the subjects they teach - wmy on earth would they need one? They need a teaching qualification definitely. Something that no all private schools agree with!

TheCoalition I am talking about subjects at secondary level up to A Level which is where my experience lies. I have taught RS and Philosophy for 12 years and have yet to encounter much economics (though they have just introduced a business ethics module in the Upper 6th). To suggest that economics is not a hard only shows you have never looked at the syllabus. Yes there are elements of applied economics on the subjects you mentioned but none of them deal with the theory of economics that A level does (DP has a MA in economics and has taught it for 12 years so I do know what I am talking about).
As for philosophy, that is a similar thing. There are elements of it in many subjects but the actual core of it is a subject in itself and not easy! Physics at A level is extremely challenging and you do need a degree to teach it competently.
Stuck yes you could make similar arguments for private hospitals is they don't make profits (but I have no idea if they do). I don't doubt that by grad. level they young people you encounter are "level" but perhaps that could indicate that private school don't give the advantage some on here think and if people want to pay for it and "waste" their money thats up to them!

I think you're in for rather a long wait, Stuck. Some people will always be born with advantages over others.

My comment was that there is not a huge movement of British people at this moment wanting to have one size fits all type of UK state school so there's no chance in getting rid of acads., religious schools, state grammars, and posh and rough comps. Even under labour they were keen to keep the differences. No political party is behind that so it won't happen - thus pointless thread.

Difference between nmost proviate schools and private hospitals is private hospitals make profits for shareholders - some of them. Most private schools don't so there is no profit to tax. Everything is ploughed back which seems to work fine. Indeed our private schools are some of the best schools on the planet, admired the world over. We sould all be terribly proud of them.