Private schools charity status: Is 'nicking' poor but bright DCs from the state sector the answer??

[miljee]

as in via scholarships? Personally I don't think they should be allowed to get around the Charity Commission in this way. They're supposed to be 'of benefit to their community'- surely pulling in the clever DCs from the local state schools merely 'degrades' the state school but improves the exam results for the private school? Would we be happy with that as a solution??

Well some schools such as Manchester Grammar build their whole ethos around giving access to very bright lads from families who couldn't otherwise afford such an education.

Also many independent schools allow kids from the local state schools to use their facilities. Is this not a benefit to the community?

I don't think it's 'nicking' bright students from the state system at all. It just so happens that their brains have afforded them a choice they wouldn't otherwise have. In the same way that the money of many of the other students has done the same.

Thousands of bright kids will still go to state school either because they haven't been given a scholarship or because they and their parents feel it's the right decision for them. The state system is not being starved of bright sparks just because the odd one accepts a scholarship at an independent school.

As for charitable status; Well surely they can hold this so long as their revenue is ploughed back into the school?

Cushion, it was my impression that to have charitable status there must be some 'public benefit' demonstrated. This is from the Guardian, a year ago:

"The Charity Commission today confirmed that it plans to publish general guidance in October on how charities will be expected to meet the "public benefit" clause of the new Charities Act, which is due to become law next year.

Under the act for the first time, charitable organisations that charge fees - including fee-paying schools - will have to prove that they still bring a "public benefit" if the cost of their fees are beyond the means of people on low incomes."

The fact is though 'many' independent schools MIGHT allow local DCs to use their facilities, the very fact the Charity Commission has recently become involved is because many absolutely do not OR believe 9-10pm every other Thursday evening's use of the tennis courts meets those criteria.

And surely those bright DCs 'brains affording them a choice they wouldn't otherwise have had' means the same thing as depriving the local state school of those brains and presumably, talent?

Yes, thousands of DCs WILL continue to go to state schools- just fewer than before; to, once again, the gain and benefit of the private schools. Yes, 'the system' IS 'being starved of bright sparks'.

The thing is, where private schooling is concerned, the numbers are small- what, 7% of DCs? BUT it appears the influence of that percentage extends WAY beyond 7%- and I feel the already manifest advantage those DCs get does not need to be further enhanced by ever more brilliant exam results/top flight university places facilitated by creaming off the brightest DCs from the local schools in the name of retaining 'charitable status'-ie to be allowed to 'withhold tax' from the government, thus from the rest of us in order to keep fees down. In other words, the rest of us are expected to effectively subsidise YOUR (figuratively speaking!) DCs advantage in life.

What about the compulsory opening of sporting facilities? The lending of supposedly superior teachers to the state sector (maybe to teach the top set there!) rather than the totally self-benefiting of raking off DCs who will serve to enhance your private school yet further?

Is educating 700,000 children without taking any money from the taxman not a public benefit. Who is benefitting, if it is not the taxpayer.

It would certainly cost a lot more than the 17.5% VAT to educate children in the maintained sector.

And no one is forcing anyone to apply for a scholarship place.

Once again, if there is nothing wrong with state schools, why the whinge about private?

No it's not a public benefit.

I'm with you, scienceteacher. Those of us who choose the independent sector pay the same tax as those who use the state sector. We are voluntarily paying twice for our children's education.

If independent schools closed and that 7% suddenly appeared in the state sector, how much more tax would we all have to pay to cover the cost of educating them?

Quite agree with Science Teacher. We are PAYING twice if we choose to use the private system.

If there is nothing wrong with the state system why is there any demand for private education. The government has tinkered with education over the years, getting rid of grammer schools (even though half of Labour MPS went to them).

My son's school opens their doors to the local community because the state schools have slowly sold off their playing fields.

The Charity Commission has said under the new laws there has be proof of benefit to the poor, not benefit to anyone. Under the old law since the 1600s or something in the UK charity included relief of poverty but also education, education of anyone was enough and that's all now gone because Labour has a thing about posh people and it's doing the same to schools as it did to hunting etc. So yes you need to show you benefit the real poor but it can be the very high IQ poor. It doesn't have to be the under 100 IQ poor.

Most private school parents like me would quite like very bright poor children in the schools. I know children at my children's old schools North London Collegiate, Habs who are from poor hoomes but super bright. It's great to have that mixture just as Manchester Grammar tries to be and is aiming ultimately to let any boy in who is clever enough regardless of parental income.

If the labour reforms mean privileged posh schools cream off the brightest local state school children and there is a bigger gap than ever between state and private schools that is such fun and I think it's brilliant. That will teach labour to meddle with our school which are some of the best in the world (in the private sector).

Our school allows the local state schools to use both sporting facilities and science facilities at various times in the year. One state school also used the fabulous stage and its equipment to put on a benefit concert for a local charity.

It also ensures our local beacon primary school is not twice as over-subscribed as it already is.

I know I'm paying twice and I absolutely believe that it is right that I do so. I think you'd find that very few parents who chose the independent route do so with an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude.

This is a lecture given by Prof Luxton who has been a charity law specialist for 30 years. He thinks the new charities Act attack on independent schools will be against the law I agree with him.

I think one of the worst things the Labour government has done was abolishing the Assisted Places Scheme. Now private schools are offering bursaries in its place however the only way they can raise the money for this is by charging the parents paying the full fees more. therefore fees keep rising, meaning that private education becomes unaffordable for more people.

My husband and I fall into the category of many others I expect where he earns too much for us to qualify for bursaries for our children's education but we do not earn enough to pay the full fees. So private education is not a realistic option for now.

To answer the original post I think the government should stop interfering with schools charitable status as, as others have said if private schools didn't exist the government would have to find even more money for the state sector.

The government should be trying to improve state schools so that they are as good as private schools..reducing class sizes, paying teachers more to attract good teachers etc. Whereas all the government seem to be doing is interfering with private schools, criticising faith schools, introducing lotteries for places etc.

No, the answer is (a) for more people to realise that there are some very good state options (b) for all state provision to have the investment (financial and otherwise) to be brought up to an excellent standard.

Both our local state schools have sports facilities which are pretty much equal to our local independent school (with the exception of the swimming pool - indie school has one which desperately needs modernising; state schools don't have one).

Both state schools are surrounded by 6' high metal sharp-end fences or barbed-wired topped fences which are locked to keep the community out unless they are prepared to pay to hire the facilities. But the private school is expected to open its grounds to the community to be used as required for sport at no charge.

Just behind the private school, between the state schools, is a huge park with rugby, football and cricket pitches, bowling green, bandstand, skateboard park, tennis courts, basketball court, play parks for younger and older children, a cafe and open space. But the private school is still expected to give up its facilities for nothing!!

Indie school doesn't have 'bad' fences, either. Just standard round-topped cast iron ones bordering the park and a car-park style barrier at the entrance. Most of the rest is standard 6' wooden fencing panels you'd put around your garden.

I don't understand why people think that if independent schools were abolished, state schools would miraculously be better. The state would have more children to educate on the same budget. How would that possibly make things different. It's irrational. Removing charitiable status will basically mean that VAT will be charged to parents on the fee note. I would actually rather they charge VAT and get on with doing an excellent job of educating my sons than jump through hoops to satisfy a ridiculous test that benefits noone. So, in the end, independent schools will become even more expensive and even more exclusive. This will just widen the gap by making an independent education ever more unattainable for even more people. Why don't they offer each pupil a voucher to the value of whatever it costs the state to educate him/her on average each year. Instead of closing the gap they are just polarising the argument. Grrrrrr

I can't say that either dh or myself withheld tax from the govt when we were paying school fees Miljee. We paid tax and school fees.

On the basis that a parent will always try to do their best for their kids, why shouldn't those who can't afford the fees take advantage of the bursaries on offer? I thought levelling the playing field meant that we tried to open more opportunities for people by raising standards, not by breaking a system that works very well.

The only reason that the charity commission has become involved is because the government asked it to. The politics of envy and class are still evidently alive and kicking in the Labour party, as is evidenced by the unequal distribution of educational resources across the UK. This is why some of us choose to pay, along with small matters of ethos, smaller class sizes, behaviour and a broader curriculum than is delivered in the state sector.

I also fail to see why it bothers you what we choose to spend our money on. You spend yours on what you want, and I'll spend mine on ds's education.

I entirely agree with Mother Inferior with the caveat that excellent state provision is patchy, and like much else in life, you get what you pay for, therefore some choose to pay for private education as the alternative is not good enough.

That youtube link - he may be right. The Charities Act 2006 says advancement of education is one category PLUS there must be benefit to the public. It does not seem to say it must benefit the poor so surely that could be challenge the guidance which says the poor must be helped. I don't think there's anything in the new law which says the poor have to benefit but I may be wrong.

If they charge VAT you just exclude more not very well off parents which is a shame

Assisted places didn't work - they were used by posh reasonably rich parents who could delude a school that their self employed income was £5k a year to get a place. The poor from council estate rarely got a look in.

Xenia - there was nothing to stop "the poor from council estates" putting their children in for assisted places exams. I expect many would have not wanted their children going to "posh" schools or would maybe not have known of the scheme, as I doubt many state primary heads would have encouraged them to enter their children for the exams.

I went to a state primary in a rural area and then gained an assisted place to a private all girls school. My parents never lied about their income to get me there. By the time my younger sister was 11 my parents earned too much to qualify for an assisted place so she went to a comprehensive and wasn't particularly happy. The other assisted place girls at my school came from a range of backgrounds..and i would not imagine their fathers fiddled their income either.

I can't see how the current bursaries offered by private schools are going to appeal to a wider social cross section than assisted places so are you saying the current bursaries don't work either in terms of attracting those with lowest incomes.

I think the labour government just got rid of Assisted places purely because they are anti private schools and realised they would save money - apparently the money saved has been put into nursery education. A pity it wasn't used on making primary school class sizes smaller instead.

Many didn't thought, that was the trouble so it was only helping middle class children.

What we need is every parent in the country given a £5k voucher a year to spend where they choose and top up if they wish.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

The problem with vouchers is that lots of middle-class parents would try to "choose" the same limited options, thus creating the same jostling effect we have now.

Message withdrawn

£5K a term would be more helpful in my case

I am a Governor of a small independent prep school and the repercussions of the new Charity Commission teats will potentially have one of the following effects: because there is a requirement to provide bursaries etc, in a school with not much "extra" money in the bank the only way to fund these is by increasing fees. As someone else said this makes the school even more elitist. Alternatively it is not possible to show any more benefit to the general public than before (no flashy facilities, no bursaries etc) and so the school loses charitable status and closes - 200 childen then have to fit in to the already overcrowded state system.

These proposals are a real worry and in my view try to fix a "problem" that was never there in the first place. All sorts of people use the independent sector - rich and not so rich, who make huge sacrifices for their children. The common factor is CHOICE and if a child is bright enough to go to the best school around and that happens to be an independent school (it isn't always!)then who is anyone to say that should not happen. Charitable status is an historical anomoly, however I'd like to bet that the taxes paid by the parents of children in the independent sector make a huge dent in the so called "unpaid" tax which arises out of charitable status.

Yes it would be fantastic if the state sector provided the same sort of opportunities as the best of the independent sector. However that would take money, and no political party would suggest raising income tax levels to the rate required for such a radical overhaul. It would be political suicide, so we are stuck with the system we have.

Parents whose children go to state schools pay taxes too, you know. I hate this superior 'we are doing you state school scum a favour you know' attitude.