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??

I'm sure that on average, per capita taxes are much higher among private school families, Edam. And if you use maintained schools, you are getting something for your taxes, which you aren't if you go private.

The whole Nu Labour hump against private schools/charitible status thang is a potential case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

It would be much more expensive to the public purse to have more children in the maintained sector, and that money would have to be raised via taxation across the board.

Anyone who bleats about charitible status and VAT is really on shaky ground. They are clearly showing that they have a major chip on their shoulders regarding private education. Any sensible person would say thanks very much for contributing to our schools but not draining their resources.

Willali -- in that case, can you explain why private schools that are not charities (quite a few are limited companies or family-owned) charge fees that are entirely comparable with the schools that do have charitable status?

They charge what they think the market will bear, that's all there is to it. Your argument would make sense if admission to the schools were needs-blind, but that is almost never the case, except in anomalies such as Christ's Hospital.

I don't object to people sending their children private if they can afford it and that's what they think is best, but to pretend that this option is available to anyone with a bright child, and that fee-paying parents are somehow performing a public service by freeing up state school places for others is just risible.

I would guess about 95% of private schools are charities. I cannot think of a single god one that isn't to be honest form Manchester Grammar to those my children were at- Habs, north London collegiate, merchant taylors. There are two group I know of GEMS and Cognita I think who are companies and they are not many and not very high up league tables and most parents don't really seek a school like that if they're going to pay.

If I set up a private school yes I would charage what the market could bear but 70% of fee income goes directly onh teacher wages fo you've only got 30% left for bildings, rent etc (bad typing as on train,,sorry...)

94% of parents use the state sector and given the average wage is £25k most could not afford to go private. I agree on that. I do not agree that we who go private are not doing the state a serivce - we clearly are - we are saving it £5k a year per child over 13 years in my case £5 x 13 x 5. I should be getting tax rebates and a huge great pat on the back fro Gordon Brown who I see has nobly chosen a local school for his son where there are a huge number of children with free school meals and 85% speak two languages.

Saving the state money is not the objective of private education but it is certainly a consequence.

DD's school is entirely dependent on fee income and has no huge historical fund to provide bursaries like some other schools. Any which are given come out of fee income i.e. are funded by current parents, apart from a couple for sixth form I think which are from the alumni society.

There is talk of launching a fundraising drive to establish a fund which will provide bursaries for the future. I hope it works. It's not really a school which has lots of really rich families, iyswim. A quick glance at the car park shows that.

actually the poorer you are, the higher proportion of your income you pay in tax (across all taxes, not just income tax). Better off people pay progressively less the wealthier they get. Because we have quite a regressive tax system in this country, with top rate of income tax at 40 per cent whether you earn 40K, 400K or 4M. And VAT and other taxes at flat rates.

What's more, the poorest in society give proportionately more to charity as well.

So all this 'ooh, we are doing you a favour by taking our kids out of the state system AND we are doing society a favour by paying tax' (as if no-one else has to) is a mirror image of the true situation. And bloody insulting.

All this 'oh, we make sacrifices, as if no-one else does!

Xenia: why do you think it is the case that 'most parents don't really seek a school like that [GEMS/COGNITA managed] if they're going to pay.' ?

amen, edam

We're in NZ - I will pay GST on education for ds - if I make a donation to the state school (most school charge them) I get 33% back from the tax man.

Private school's do get some money from the ministry of ed here, but the 12.5% GST on fees more than covers that.

You can bury your head in the sand all you like, Edam, but there is no denying that private school parents pay tax for state schools and don't use them.

I'm not saying it's wrong to do this - but it's a fact. It really is irrelevent what poorer families pay or don't pay, tbh.

Because the private company ones seem to have second rate results or aren't in the top 50 say for A level results. They are just entering the market so it may be unfair criticism. I think they are aiming for cheap and cheerful too as their market sector which perhaps parents may not want. You can get very cheap and cheerful in a state grammar just as well if you live in the right area. I think they're owned by Arabs too some of them not that that's necessarily a problem but they are not quite the ethos of say GPDST schools or those of city livery companies or the very old foundation schools.

Interesting that you consider £7k-£9k per year (depending on the school) to be 'cheap and cheerful'

it is relevant waht poor people pay if they pay proportianally more in taxes than rich people.

rich people will always buy education.

its not fair - but then we live in an individualistic society, i think there is irony abound when people mortgage themselves to the hilt to buy a house in a catchemtn area becuase they cant afford private education ....and then start spouting crap about "community"

there is no "community"

BTW, Edam, according to HMRC's own figures, the rich have a much higher tax burden than the poor. A 100k earner has a 30.7% tax rate, whereas a 20k earner has a 15.0% rate. Poorer people spend far more of their income on zero vat items, such as food and children's clothes, or low vat items, such as heating. They also pay a lot less in direct income taxes, and possibly lower council taxes too. In addition, they get tax rebates that rich taxpayers can only dream of.

But all this is irrelevent really to this thread

Why is it unfair?

Is it an accident that those who send their children to private schools worked hard at school and then at university (doing courses that offered a ROI), and then worked extremely hard for maybe 20 years in industry?

Is it really fair to think that parents who dossed around at school, left early, barely held down unskilled jobs ever since, and perhaps are barely out of nappies themselves, should have exactly the same opportunities.

Dream on!

I'm not burying my head any-bloody-where, I'm merely rebutting some of the more disingenuous statements made by parents trying to justify private education.

And the line that 'waah, poor us, we pay tax for something we choose not to use' is a really pathetic line of argument. If that's the standard of debate private education buys you...

No citizen or taxpayer uses everything the government funds. There are plenty of people who don't have children at all paying taxes - should they start moaning about shelling out for midwives, health visitors and maternity wards? I'm vegetarian, but some of my taxes are spent by DEFRA supporting the meat industry. I don't go around telling meat-eaters I'm doing them some sort of special favour by paying tax!

FWIW I went to both state and independent schools. Don't object to people sending their children private as such, just object to false logic.

Oh p-lease, now poor people do better out of tax rebates! Are you for real, ST? You are arguing black is white and I'm sure you damn well know it!

The lowest-paid 10 per cent have a tax burden of 44 per cent, according to the most recent HMRC figures. link

As to fairness... money begets money, as a rule. Privilege tends to run in the family - funny that. It might come as a surprise to some of the posters on this thread, but people who attend private schools are not genetically superior.

Oh, now we are getting down to it, your argument really is that parents who pay for private education are just morally superior to everyone else.

Because no-one who uses the state school system works hard, of course.

I don't think anyone is saying 'poor us' - just stating facts. We do not take up one of the services paid for by our taxes. What is so controversial about this statement (taxpayers with no children in the system are in exactly the same situation, but it doesn't cause them to rise up in arms).

I think that if you look at many mumsnet threads, there is a prevailing culture of 'what can I get for nothing from the state', so it is not an unreasonable question for the OP to ask - on the offchance.

Shrug/ I don't get any tax rebates despite having 5 children - yes I'm for real.

neither do I, so bloody what?

What's your point then?

Sorry, I hate to get personal, but you started it.

Scienceteacher, I really hate this assertion - which I have read on mumsnet more than once now - that those of us who send our children to state schools are somehow trying to fleece the state. Wtf?

You are adding two and two and coming up with one million SSB.

This thread isn't about state school parents, tbh.