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 strongly object to the following comments made by science teacher:

"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."

Science teacher - You are making sweeping generalisations above that are not factually correct.

Firstly many families who use private schools have inherited money or fees are paid by grand parents so the parents sending the children to private schools have not necessarily worked hard themselves. Obviously there are also many parents of children at private schools who do work very hard and have made large sacrifices too.

Then there are also those who have worked hard at school, got degrees, held down a career for 20 yrs and pay higher rate tax, such as my husband, but still cannot afford private education for their children. In the south east I imagine that one needs a household income of well over 60 k to send two children to private school and pay the mortgage. So please don't class all those who do not send their children to private schools, as lazy goodfornothings who haven't worked hard enough.

The reason I am against the governments proposals re: charitable status is that their measures will push private school fees even higher, and even further out of reach for normal hard working people.

I also expect that more small prep schools will end up closing or merging, or having to join the Cognita group (where I believe the schools have to make a profit for the share holders). So there will also be less choice in the private sector.

In the light of evidence that the more middle-class children that go to a school the better that school does, I find it almost moronic that people are having to ask 'why would abolishing private schools improve state schools?'

No one is going to abolish private schools so it's a bit pointless to argue about it. Some places around the world have worked with a system including some US states where parents are given a voucher to spend where they choose including at private schools and I think that would work well because £5,000 is about half or two thirds of many day private school fees and a lot of parents could just about afford to top up to a full place who could not afford private schools now. Even better would be to have all schools in the private sector entirely however as things are always better run outside of state control. That would be my ideal.

As for who is better I as just having this debate with my elder daughter who was ridiculously suggesting she was the "best child" as if mothers ever do decide one is better than the other. They are all uniquely good. In general private school parents pay for places out of their own income (a few women live off male earnings which is iniquitous and politically wrong but that's for another thread) but plenty of the mothers pay the fees from their own earnings. Very very few play from inheritance. I suppose a few have grandparents paying but very very few in my experience and a few are paid by he army and some have scholarships or like we had for about 10 years a virtually free place for one because his father taught at the school but in general parents pay and they work very hard to earn that money and prioritise their children's education over holidays and cars in the main. Many are children of teachers or shop workers and the like in my experience who work very hard sometimes with two jobs to pay day school fees of £10000 a year.

Are peop;le "better" if they can afford fees? I think all people are of equal worth but very different. Some are obese. Some unpleasant. Some very very low IQ'd. Some horrible ot be with. A huge mixed bag. Some are terribly lazy. Others will work very hard. I've always worked very hard and I think part of the reason I can afford school fees is because of that, because I was born with a reasonably high IQ, because I chose a career which would enable me to pay school fees and because I don't have political objections to it. It doesn't make me a "better" person inside morally although on a good few scales I probably am better than a lot of people if you took a list of say IQ, looks, niceness, stability, health, career success etc I do think I've been both lucky and hard working and probably come reasonably highly up most scales.

Hmm, okaaaay.

I'm assuming from your comment that you do realise that at least some state schools would be improved by the abolishing of private schools.

I don't always agree with Xenia, but her last post was spot on.

A question for those who think private education is unfair: if you know a family to have a six-figure income, what should they be spending their money on. Say they have £40k more disposable income than you, where morally should that money go?

I don't understand the criteria for charity status. Why are donkey sactuaries charities.

In response to science teachers post at 6 somethng am today

I am sorry if what i wrote was construde as mudslinging and i hop that the following post clarified it - if not then i hope this apology will do in it's stead.

My post wasn't directly answered as a consequence of this, perhaps you would be so kind?

i think re: the 40k question. that as we stand at the moment that would be hard to argue, however i think the wider argument is why are your children entitled to better education becuase you have more money?

I think that someone who has £40k more disposable income than the average should be paying most of it in tax. But I guess that's not the answer you're looking for?

Because life is not fair. Why are some children lucky enough to be born looking pretty or with a high IQ or with loving parents? Life is full of inequities. Some very rich parents don't pay or bother with good schools and never cuddle or love their children. I know someone where both his parents didn't want him and he was at boarding school from age 7 and I thnk they even argued in the holidays about who had to have him. That is also very unfair and damaging as much as if he had been born into poverty and neglected in a series of squats because his internal emotional self is damaged.

(If you have an extra £40k income then then £16,500 will be paid in tax and national insurance and you will have £23,600 spare - cost of 2 day school places.)

I was assuming the 40k was after tax, ie disposable income.

I think you've (deliberately?) missed my point there, ST

Are you saying you want to go back to the 1970s and the 95% marginal tax rate?

If any more were made in that direction, we would do the clicheed thing and leave the country, probably for the US. There gets to a point where the middle classes won't put up with labour ideology.

a) Pretty much, yes
b) Tata then

can you spell 'Brain Drain'?

Ah well, I don't think all the people with brains have vast levels of disposable income.

In response to 'why are your children entitled to better education becuase you have more money? ' - are you going to go down the route of 'why do you have a nicer car?' 'Why have you got a bigger house?' 'How come you can have lots of holidays?'

There are lots of things that I can afford that some others can't. What do you suggest??

Would the US want all the tax refusers. Just curious? They are quite fussy about who they take aren't they?

It's a cliche, but refers to those who have the ability to stimulate the economy and provide wealth for the nation.

If you lose those people, the country is worse off, or the gap is made up by immigrants. It doesn't help the working class at all - at best neutral, at worst, no one to pay their pensions and more short term needs.

Not if you are a US citizen

That's where I was going, sniffy. It seems there is no end of people telling us how to spend our honestly earned money, but woe betide turning the tides.

Well, of course not ScienceTeacher. But if you are British and a high earning, say, lawyer, why would the States want you? They've got plenty high earning lawyers of their own.

It's all a bit foot stomping isn't it?

It just sounds to me like lots of people on here would like to establish a communist state. I have chosen a private school despite the fact that we have some lovely village schools nearby. I am guessing that the place that we would have been entitled to will be gratefully recieved, perhaps by someone who is unable to live this area.

Don't know about lawyers, as that is a fairly geographically specific occupation, but loads of countries are offering immigrant visas to highly skilled migrants - US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. Then there's all of Europe, which is visa free.

It would be a very silly government that would nudge lucrative citizens in the direction of, say, Australia. It is only a tiny nudge that is needed.

Why would a private school want to give a scholarship (ie: spend the money)to a student that is not clever? The point of the system is to take intelligent but under-privileged students whose parents are not in a situation to give what their child may need in education and curriculum.