Private schools - should they scrap their bursaries?

[SomeGuy]

I was interested to read this report from the Charity Commission.

Basically they tested five schools to decide whether they were charitable or not. Fees ranged from £6k to £15k per year.

The definition of charitable is a new one, since 2008. It is here.

The key criterion is

"F3 Principle 2b Where benefit is to a section of the public, the opportunity to benefit must not be unreasonably restricted"

in particular

"F10. Restrictions based on ability to pay any fees charged

Charities can charge for the services or facilities they provide. They can also charge fees that more than cover the cost of those services or facilities, provided that the charges are reasonable and necessary in order to carry out the charity?s aims, for example in maintaining or developing the service being provided. However, where, in practice, the charging restricts the benefits to only those who can afford to pay the fees charged, this may result in the benefits not being available to a sufficient section of the public.

...
The fact that the charitable facilities or services will be charged for, and will be provided mainly to people who can afford to pay the charges, does not necessarily mean that the organisation does not have aims that are for the public benefit; however,
an organisation that excluded people from the opportunity to benefit because of their inability to pay any fees charged would not have aims that are for the public benefit.

Therefore, where charities do charge fees, people who are unable to pay those fees must, nevertheless, be able to benefit in some material way related to the charity?s aims. This does not mean that charities have to offer services for free. Nor does it mean that people who are unable to pay the fees must actually benefit, in the sense that they choose to take up the benefit. They must not be excluded from the opportunity to benefit, whether or not they actually do so."

Basically they have determined that poor people must benefit in some way from private schools in order to have charitable status.

Of the five schools assessed, means-tested bursaries were advertised at four. The percentage of fee income going towards bursaries was: 14%, 10%, 5%,

Dame Suzi Leather (what a fab name but I must admit a little odd). She seemed to be really gunning for private schools at one point. Wasnt she Head of the Fertility Watchdog and one of her last policies she put in place was to remove the anonimity on donor eggs. Someone please correct me if I am wrong!

Wonder what schools her children go to.....

I believe I am right in saying she sent them to private school and she is an active member of the Labour Party.

Why does that not suprise me!

This article in the Times says she went to private school herself and at least one of her daughters was at private school.

"After all, she was herself educated for a while at a private school and still has a daughter at a fee-paying school in Devon, which she declines to name. ?It does lots of charitable works? is all she will give away."

She herself went to public school, btw.

Suzi Leather like most of her cohorts uses the private system and then want to pull up the ladders behind them hoping to exclude anyone else from using it. Seeker, you are so bitter and riddled with the usual inverted snobbery perceptions it is unbelievable. I was educated at a mixture of state an private ( father's redundancy during the Wilson years, not Maggie, caused the change). So I feel I can speak for both sides. I went to some crappy private schools (a convent) and an oustanding pre prep. I went to a disastrous
comprehensive, (where they thought it cruel to let a child study for more than 5 O levels) and a terrific state 6th form. My son is at a local state secondary and it is a very good one and we did not move to our house because it was in the catchment area , we moved cos we liked the house. The local High School which he atttends was oversubcribed we put it as 1st choice. If he had not got in we would have sent him privately (he passed the entrance exam for the local Public School.) That was our back up as some other state secondary schools nearby are inferior. To be honest apart from the uniform you cant really tell much difference between the private kids and High School kids they all have a Manchester accent and no plums. Would Seeker ban private health care as well. How much does that save the NHS? A lot, I bet. Why dont you put away your Socialist Worker T.shirt and Greenham Common bovver boots Seeker and your warped inverted snobbery. It's all very passe now. I notice from you pics that you have a horse isn't that a bit elitist for you or is it just used for riding with the local Hunt. GET YOUR CHIP OFF YOUR SHOULDER BEFORE IT CRUSHES YOU. I raise a glass to choice for all!!!!

Also Seeker get a dictionary and learn how to spell. It is divisive not devisive. (I hope you are not an English teacher)

Er Pumpkineater or lotuseater whatever you like to call yourself. Do you not think Grammar School kids have a huge advantage too. Oxford University (all) colleges have a huge intake of Grammar School alumni. I am all for Grammar Schools and I feel that those educated there enjoy all the same privileges and status as privately educated children. Does it salve your loony left conscience because most Grammar Schools are free? You have the same chippy "I'm alright Jack" mentality as Seeker.
Oh! the hypocricy makes me weep!!!

I can't spell either, but had a rubbish English teacher at my Comprehensive. Seeker thinks Comprehensive Schools are the answer but I would like to know if she has 1st hand experience of them!

I am not going to get into a slanging match with you Usersrlosers. I see you have posted all over place today, culminating in one delightful post saying you wish David Cameron closes down Mumsnet.

However, if you could just stop being so CROSS I think you may see that my argument is not particularly to ban grammar schools (whilst my children enjoy them) but to wish (even though my children enjoy them) that other children could have a decent education too, and are only able to have that at the moment, in some cases, if either their parents pay, or if they have articulate and educated parents (who happen to live in an area where they have grammar schools too).

Do you really disagree with that?

I just dont understand parents who use the grammar school system but dont particuarly agree with them. Their children didnt just happen to pass the 11+ (they were probably tutored to within an inch of their life!)or are you saying they just turned up at one of the most competitive tests of their young lives and just happened to pass!! Please dont say there is no other choice in your area. Of course there is... In Bucks the grammar schools are in great demand and if you really dont agree with them pull your children out of them and let them be used by someone who will really appreciate them!

Seeker - you say there are no comps in a grammar school area; in Plymouth there are 3 grammars, and I did teaching practice at 2 comps and got my first teaching job at a third. I can also think of a further 5 comps off the top of my head. I wonder why it varies so much?

Great news on the bursaries front anyway - I think the work schools like Charterhouse do (see my earlier post) are more beneficial to more pupils than giving bursaries.

There must be an alternative to the grammar school - what happens to the children that dont pass the 11+...

There are no comps in a grammar school areas because by definition they are not comprehensive. Lots of grammar school areas have schools which are called comprehensives, which is misleading and inaccurate.

Most areas with grammar schools these days have so few grammars with such large catchment areas, and populated by such a high proportion of students that would otherwise have gone private, that the other schools are indeed comprehensive since the grammars are taking such tiny numbers away from the other schools on average. Devon, Bucks, Birmingham, London & I think Essex would be examples. The lottery of the 11+ also means that the 'creaming off' of the brightest doesn't work properly and with that combined with others that don't apply for ideological reasons the state non-grammar schools will have the full ability range represented and in pretty much the right proportions.

There are just a very few areas where the grammars take 25%+ of the ability range (Kent, Lincs?, can't think of anywhere else) where the comprehensives are not truely comprehensive.

By your definition, qumquat, are there any real comprehensives anywhere? Factor in house prices and it starts to look wobbly.

Leather has climbed down recently which is fascinating. It's apparently due to the economic climate. They have at least 5 years to make any changes and anyway I think there are good grounds legally to challenge Leather's interpretation of the new law. All good fun.

I believe that Cornwall has truely comprehensive schools because of its rural nature and spread-out population.

The distances that people have to travel to school, even if they go to the nearest, means that people don't look further afield for schooling. Plus, there are only two private secondary schools in the whole county.

Where we live now has comprehensive schools (no selective schools)but they are all different - mixed, catholic, single-sex etc. I find this a bit bizarre because you always imagine that only private and grammar schools would be single sex.

I was educated at a comprehensive school with a nutty headteacher. His slogan was that we were as good as a public school (which we probably were!) and insisted that we all did loads of subjects and played lots of rugby. I did 12 GCSEs and one O'level...it was all a bit excessive and made my Sixth Form college days seem a bit of a doss.

I thought GCSEs replaced O levels?