Should giving a bursary to an existing pupil count towards the 'charity provision' of a private school?

[gaussgirl]

Seriously, what do you think?

Someone I know has 2 x DSs at a private prep, largely financed via Daddy's banking bonus. That has gone up in smoke. My acquaintance says it'll be OK as she's SURE the school will give them some financial help because they will want to keep such 'in-house' school socialised DCs, AND by providing bursaries in this way, the school will be able to meet its 'doing good for the wider community' (or however it goes) commitment to enable it to maintain its charitable status.

Sadly I suspect she's right- it will! Privilege has always begat privilege.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the charity status thing- as long as the school IS actually providing a genuine community service! But I'd think paying for a DC from a poor home to get the sort of education available to the wealthy at this school would meet the criteria better than keeping 'one of their own' in clover.

Oh yawn, why does it all have to turn into mud-slinging?
Yes, if you put your children into private school and then something horrendous happens, such as death of a parent, then of course the school should do the decent thing and try to help.
Losing you bank bonus is not a tragedy - and if you're daft enough to rely on a bonus to pay school fees then tough bloody shit!
Might actually do some good for the kids to have to move into the real world and realise that throwing a load of money at a school doesn't equate with a better education.

Scummymummy - excellent post 18:37 last night

I've been pondering over a few misconceptions on this thread.

Charitible independent schools (CIS) are charities with the aim of advancing education. Their aim is not to relieve poverty, so a child from a poor home is not more entitled to a place than a child from a more middle-class home.

Schools (CIS, that is) don't have a choice to opt out of their charitible status. For good or bad, they are stuck with it. The trustees do not have the power to sell the assets of the school, so they can close down, sell the land and buildings, to a new enterprise. What the Charities Act does is to order the schools to demonstrate their public benefit, and there is no one definition of what this might be.

Bursaries are an accepted way of demonstrating public benefit. They don't have to fund everyone who wants to join the school, but have to give everyone (within the aims of the school) the opportunity to benefit. This means that numbers of reduced cost places are available to everyone, but they have to compete for them.

Bursaries, if they exist, have to be available for a substantial proportion of the public - not just the very bottom of the economic scale, nor should they be so token as to cater for those who can manage if they cut back a bit (eg 5% off). When a family faces new financial hardship, they are just as entitled to the opportunity for a school place as a child that has never had money.

It is certainly not the child's fault that the family has fallen on hard times, and it is reasonable for a school to see what it can do to maintain stability for that child.

The aim of a school is not to relieve poverty - it's to provide education. Public benefit is derived by giving the opportunity for a means-tested bursary to all of those who cannot otherwise afford it. Most people cannot afford private education, and if you limited your bursaries to only the poorest, most people would still not be able to afford it, and you would not be able to show public benefit.

SP well said, but you can expect your points to be ignored becuase on these threads (which are nominally in the 'education' section') the vocal minority appear to be incapable of understanding the differnce between education and social engineering.

True, MrsGuy

I was thinking a lot about this, so just thought I would type up my thoughts while they were fresh. I can now regurgitate them at will

I a fed up with the views here that private schools should keep giving, giving, giving. They already give plenty!

squeakypops- I am very sorry about the 22:22:50 post. Apparently I am cohabiting with a bananaheaded drongo. Please ignore all posts under my name made after about 7pm last night till now.

Thanks, ftr- that really was me.

No worries, scummy. You caused me to review my posts to see how troll-like they were and caused me to reminisce for a bit. I had a good chuckle at a few long threads I was involved in.

That's v sweet of you, squeakypop. I will tell my partner that I am considering forgiving him.

you must!

Hugs and kisses all round then? But it doesn't change the fact that when a democratically elected government has access to a Charities Commission, it should demand that that commission extremely carefully examines the bursary given to an existing child within that school- SORRY, I meant charitable establishment having- what was it?- oh yes (Q: ) "the aim of advancing education". God, makes you think of Oxfam in the Congo, doesn't it?

re: (Q: )"How is it the kid's fault if the father lost his job?"

Well- how is it the kid's fault if its (Q: ) "...parents flunked school and squandered every opportunity given to them"- (is that like 'became underpaid NHS front line staff?' - how STUPID and negligent!). Surely the DC whose nasty parents were unable to supply a private education at one of these hallowed establishments SHOULD be the beneficiary of said education? After all, it's not THEIR fault their parents can't afford it due to their dissolute lifestyle!...

As for teaching, if you have (Q: ) "done time in state schools"- is that a bit like Pentonville?

Sorry but statements like these SO negate any worthwhile contributions such posters make. But it IS kinda fun putting certain (not all) fee paying parent 'up against it' and finding out how SOON they crumble and tell us what they REALLY think about the state dross!

I stand by my original OP.

good post gaussgirl!

I agree that it can be quite amusing watching fee paying parents come out with the most hilarious comments about what they THINK the state sector is like!

Last time I posted about my dcs state school which (like countless others these days) places children in sets by ability, and where the children in the higher sets achieve results at least as high as those in the local private school, I was interrogated by fee payers who clearly didn't want to believe it's true.

I guess if you're parting with 12K per year per child then you have to convince yourself you're getting an exceptionally better deal than you otherwise would. Otherwise you look a bit dim!!

You miss the point, GG.

Poor children aee not entitled to a private education, but they are entitled to try for a place - same as everyone else, semi-rich or poor.

Repeaat the mantra - private schools are not there to relieve poverty.

Based on your last post, GG - I am very disappointed in you. I thought this wasn't about state vs private, as you foolishly tried to put me down yesterday.

I think there is a misconception on this thread that the only permissable aim of charities is to relieve poverty.

gg - you are seem to think the charities commission should be ultra vigilante with their tiny funds from the tax payers and yet you don't worry about the huge amounts of tax-payers monies mismanaged by the government in the public sector schools!

The amount you are talking about is a drop in the ocean, when weighed against the state schools. All that teaching time wasted on bloody paperwork...if the govnt had its own house in order the majority of private parents wouldn't need to waste their money on schools in the first place!

The two things aren't mutually exclusive you know!

interesting about the results 'at least as good', becuase that is a regular misconception. Looking yesterday at the league tables, our local grammar, which is oversubscribed on admissions by 10-1, has gsce results of 83%, and the independent, which is oversubscribed by a similar number has redsults of 98.5%.
So, given similar intakes of clever children, what makes the state school perform less well?

MrsGuy - how do you know that the grammar school and independent school have similar intakes?

I read somewhere that grammar schools in Kent tend to have better intakes than local independents and still get less good GCSE and A level results.

Impossible to say MrsG as there will so many variable to take into account.
IME, feepaying parents tend to push their kids more in terms of intensive revision, which at GCSE level can make quite a significant difference. Less so at A level, which requires more natural ability, and then again you see a big difference at degree level where the highest degrees go to proportionately more state pupils. I suppose it stands to reason that if a parent is parting with around 12k every year for each child, they are maybe more likely to be pushy?

Personally a difference of 83% against 98% wouldnt bother me at all - I'd be pretty confident that my kids would be among the 83% and I can't get too excited about what other people's kids get. In fact, I'd rather resent forking out shedloads of dosh for the difference of 83%/98%

I agree with Anna8888

Just because there are similar numbers of applicants per place doesn't mean they are in the same ability range. For example, as it's free to apply to the grammar, you may get lots of 'chancers' who put it down but don't really have a chance; but if you have to pay to sit the independent exam then people might be put off applying unless they think they have a realistic chance. This is just one possible scenario for why intake raw ability levels might be different, there are loads of others you can hypothesise.

In terms of raw ability the stats are that at age 11, there are 7,000 extremely able children in private sector and 31,000 in state sector.

When it comes to feeding through to performance at 18, 7,400 private sector get 3 A's, versus 1,400 state sector.

Even if you filtered it down between grammar versus comprehensive, that is still a woeful inability on the state side in ensuring that children reach their potential. And given that teachers in state schools are just as able as in private sector, you have to lay an awful lot of blame at the SATS hoops and the discipline/lack of exclusion policies and admin stuff that the govt heaps onto state schools. It is such a waste of children's potential.

Saying that, those 1,400 state schools pupils must be pretty bloody impressive - more so than the average 3 A's private pupil who's been hothoused and coached all the way.

That's really interesting squiffy. To translate slightly:

18% of very bright kids age 11 are in independent schools, but 84% of those achieving 3As at A level are in independent schools.

That is very shocking - where did the info come from? How was raw ability at 11 measured?

I think there are big differences between grammar schools.

Some, like Tiffin Girls, are incredibly hard to get into, mainly because it is the only one around for miles.

In other areas there seem to be lots of them, meaning that the average 11-plus score necessary to get in must be lower as there are more places.

So you could have a dozen or two or three of really, really high-performing grammars easily matching the independents, but then a tranche of not-so-goods where the children didn't need such high IQs to get in and couldn't have been expected to get three As.